Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standby Equity Distribution Agreement


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Standby Equity Distribution Agreement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yorkville Advisors, a major subject of this article, has requested deletion per OTRS Ticket#: 2013012210009343, statiing in their request that: "a Wikipedia page created describing the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement and it has been used as a place to post potential defamatory information about our firm that had no connection to the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement." The issue might be resolved by deleting the section which refers to the company requesting deletion. Geoff Who, me?  02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK as this is really nothing more than an attack article targeting Yorkville Advisors, and its executives, who have been accused of some misconduct. As the case has not been decided, and there is a presumption of innocence, this article in its current form is entirely inappropriate and a  violation of our policy on biographies of living people.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see that the concept itself has recieved much coverage beyond, x and x entered into an SEDA. The company names and exec names all circular redirect to the article, ensuring searches for the LPs in question will direct to the article. Obviously an attack page. Stalwart 111  07:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but scrub and, as necessary, revdel. GNews, GBooks, and GScholar all turn up nontrivial uses of the term, which may be arcane but not inconsequential. The concept appears covered in a standard reference work; perhaps an editor with access to a law library can help out a bit. I'm also more than a little dubious about the weasel-wording of the request to OTRS. "Potential defamatory information"? Right now the article is mostly a summary of rather serious SEC charges (civil, not criminal, so the presumption-of-innocence rule doesn't apply) brought against Yorkville, apparently described accurately though at excessive length, and an overdetailed account of related court proceedings. This stuff likely doesn't belong in this article, but it's legitimately newsworthy and might well be valid in better form in a different article, whatever the motivations of the original posters might have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There has been an SEC lawsuit filed against Yorkville Advisors. It is mentioned in the "Standby Equity Distribution Agreement" entry that Yorkville Advisors pioneered the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement. However, the lawsuit filed against Yorkville Advisors has nothing to do with the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement and therefore the "Fraud Case" section should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.210.90 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but scrub and, as necessary, revdel. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:Please note that the last post has a Conflict of interest; http://extremetracking.com/vdf011.htm?barbjhwk&&20%20Jul,%20Tue,%2014:52:19,,38.105.210.90,,38.105.210.90,,YORKVILLE%20ADVISORS%20LLC,,North%20America,,United%20States,,us,,New%20Jersey,,Jersey%20City,,Cable/DSL,,ie7,,MSIE%207,,xp,,Windows%20XP,,1280x1024,,32%20Bit%20(16.7M),,Enabled,,,,,,,,30,,35 - The unsigned IP of the prior posting looks to resolves back to the company that made the request. Merge the data about the case into a page on Yorkville. I did contribute legal facts Citing sources to the story as per Be bold but it evolved out of the Hedge fund page under 8. Debates and controversies "8.5 Overvaluing assets " but another user moved it here to this page for some reason. --WPPilot 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am also somewhat skeptical of the OTRS request.  But the contract itself seems to have no real notability; it's one of many investment vehicles created over the course of recent decades, and of course it will appear in a handful of reference books; not sure whether such appearance merits each such vehicle a separate article.  The SEC lawsuit may be notable, but if it is notable, it belongs in Yorkville Advisors itself; finding all of this at this title does give weight to the coatrack argument. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yorkville Advisors redirects to this article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, 9 different "related" BLP names and alternate company names redirect to the article in question. The effect being that if you search Google for any of those people, this article (with the tenuously related "bad stuff" they have done) will be in the top couple of results. Stalwart 111  05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - if there is to be any coverage on this, it should be in articles on the subjects concerned, not in this mess of a coatracks. If the company and/or individuals are notable of course. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm seeing mostly passing mentions, with one possible magazine article exception. I don't see WP:GNG being clearly met for the article topic. (Even if the concept turns out to be more notable than I believed, it will be a lot more practical to delete and write a neutral, non-COATRACKED article than it will be to fuss through examining a precise set of specifics.)  --j⚛e deckertalk 00:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.