Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 1 July 2014

Lemelson Capital Management

Lemelson Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by a single purpose account promoting Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson and his financial businesses. Lemelson Capital Management seems to be hanging its notability on its involvement (as a major shareholder) with the devaluation of WWE in March 2014. Its report is credited (usually indirectly) with the devaluation. However, I'm not even sure whether these snippets of news in financial media about one event are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP notbaility criteria. The article largely hung its notability on the performance of its partner hedge fund, Amvona, so I've removed some of these lengthy claims because Amvona and LCM seem to be different things. Many of the citations seem to be to a Seeking Alpha news source, which doesn't seem to be very mainstream and articles are sometimes written by Amvona staff (Lemelson?). Overall I'm not sure this investment firm meets WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. 2-year-old entity that puts out plenty of press releases. I also see brief mentions in the context of WWE. What I do not see, among the dozens of refs in the article, or in Google or Highbeam searchs, is substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Prominent financial management firm ranked multiple times by Barron's as top-performing (first and second) hedge fund in the world. Several very prominent examples of its research moving stock values (WWE, K&S, Ligand, etc.) that have been extensively covered in major mainstream media, including multiple references in USA Today, the country's largest circulated newspaper, The Street, Motley Fool and abundant other mainstream and financial media outlets. The fund is not a partner; it is the primary product offering of the firm. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Orthodox2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

To be clear, the Amvona hedge fund (not the company) was ranked as top performing. There are two examples of a company report affecting share values, which from what I can see was reported explicitly in the USA Today only once. And are these other financial news sources really mainstream?! Sionk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm seeing several sources, but the same sources often seem to also talk about, get quotes from, or even use "Lemelson Capital" interchangeably with Emmanuel Lemelson. At this point I would say merge, but could use a better explanation as to why the two are independently notable? --— Rhododendrites |  02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I get the strong impression Emmanuel/Greg Lemelson is the sole financer of the Amvona Fund, while Lemelson Capital Management is the legal/business frontage for his activities. But because no-one other than the company itself explains its activities, it's one of the major reasons to question its notability. Sionk (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: If the Amvona hedge fund is notable, then it might qualify for an article. Since notability is not inherited, that doesn't qualify the management company for one. The article creator has certainly put up a blizzard of press releases, but it doesn't matter if you have five non-independent sources or fifty, not a single one of them can be used to support notability. Ravenswing 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The notability of the firm is fully established in vast independent mainstream and financial media coverage. In fact, aside from useful links to several of the firm's research reports, no primary sources are used here. The Amvona Fund is notable as an investment vehicle because of its performance rankings (top in the world), but the firm is more so because it has both managed the fund and produced the research reports that have been heavily cited in media as having tangible impact in the respective valuations of these stocks--that is, the extensive media coverage that establishes notability is more centered around the firm than the fund from my reading. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply: Then where are those sources? Coverage which establishes notability should be of articles about the subject, in independent sources, describing the subject in the "significant detail" required by the GNG. They can't be press releases, and they can't consist of quotes from the subject, and they can't be about the fund and mention the subject only in passing, and they have to be explicit and not inferred, and they need to be from reliable sources. Could you point some of those out, please? Ravenswing 19:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply: Here are a number of the mainstream and financial media references to Lemelson Capital Management included in this article:

• 1.) "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, June 16, 2014: .
• 2.) "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 22, 2014: .
• 3.) ”World Wrestling pummeled four out of five rounds this week,” by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 11, 2014: .
• 4.) "Should the McMahons Still Be Running WWE?" by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, June 7, 2014: .
• 5.) "Will the WWE Network ever make money," by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, May 20, 2014: .
• 6.) "WWE stands to lose $45-$52 million in 2014: Investors to question Vince McMahon health on Monday?" by Jack Jorgensen, Fansided, Sports Illustrated, May 19, 2014: .
• 7.) "Kulicke & Soffa jumps; activist discloses stake, calls for buyback," Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2014: .
• 8.) "World Wrestling Entertainment: Why Investors Should Stay Away," by David Tristan Liu, Seeking Alpha, June 3, 2014: .
• 9.) "David Sims in Washington, Amvona gets it right on WWE," by Colin Lockey, Seeking Alpha Editor, Seeking Alpha, April 12, 2014: .
• 10.) "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.: Yum, I Love Eating Crow (WWE)," by Michael Ranalli, Seeking Alpha, May 28, 2014: .
• 11.) "WWE's stock smackdown is a blow to Vince McMahon's credibility," "Breaking News," Seeking Alpha, May 17, 2014: .
• 12.) ”WWE can’t pull out of slide,” Seeking Alpha, April 11, 2014: .
• 13.) "Lemelson goes long World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.," by VW Staff, Value Walk, May 16, 2016: .
• 14.) "Amvona Short Call Sends WWE Tumbling,” by Clayton Browne, ValueWalk, April 7, 2014: .
• 15.) "Kulicke and Soffa Industries: Large Cash Pile and Activist Involvement," by Alex Gavrish, ValueWalk, April 29, 2014: .
• 16.) "The Amvona Fund Up 22% in May After 17% Gain in April," by VW Staff, ValueWalk, June 5, 2014: .
• 17.) “WWE profitable or on the ropes?” by Sarah Barry James, SNL Kagan, April 15, 2014: .
• 18.) "Biggest takeaways from WWE's May 19 business outlook investor call," by Chris Mueller, Bleacher Report, May 19, 2014: .
• 19.) "Shares of Ligand Pharma tick lower following word from Lemelson Capital Fund has initiated short position in stock," by Hal Lindon, Benzinga, June 16, 2014: .
• 20.) "WWE wrestling fans should get to know Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson," by Dan Marsiglia, Rant Sports, May 21, 2014: . Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: Items #1,2,3) Brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

  Items #4,5) Presuming that Motley Fool's website constitutes an independent, reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, this is still a brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

  Item #6) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #7) Quite aside from that Seeking Alpha is a site largely comprised of so-called "Instablogs" and almost entirely comprised of self-submitted articles, it can't be described as a reliable source. Beyond that, quotes from the subject explicitly cannot be used to sustain notability of the subject, and that's all this brief piece mentions of the subject.

  Items #8,9,10) Is a blog, pure and simple, as well as subject being quoted about something else.

  Items #11,12) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #13) Blatantly a press release.

  Items #14,15,16) Blogsite with unestablished reliability as a reliable source, and name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

  Item #17) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and subject only quoted, as above.

  Item #18) Quite aside from that Bleacher Report is user-submitted (want to see links to my own articles on that site?), subject only mentioned in quote from press release.

  Item #19) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and article's behind a paywall.

  Item #20) RantSports.com? Seriously?

  Honestly, I'm not out to bust your chops here, but please read the GNG carefully, because I get the notion you're just not. The GNG requires that an article sustaining notability must "discuss the subject in significant detail" and debars sources which are not independent, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Quotes from the subject doesn't count. Casual name drops do not count. Press releases do not count. A single sentence does not count. Blogs and fringe websites do not count. Now you show me a Forbes article, say, that discusses LCM (not the fund and not World Wrestling Entertainment) and runs a dozen or two paragraphs, doing nothing but discussing LCM, and that's a good reference. Listing every website you can find the company name mentioned in a Google search? Those aren't good references. Ravenswing 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rename, summarize and expand as Amvona. There is interesting history to the Amvona name, how it started, earlier incarnations, etc. A brief summary is in Emmanuel Lemelson, but most of it is in deleted content from a year or so ago: it was one of the articles - as was Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson - deleted as a result of the Wiki-PR debacle. Some versions of those deleted articles were very well referenced (similar to this article, in fact) and the content could be resurrected, reworked and merged with this article to make a complete history of the Amvona name. This would help to reduce the unduly promotional tone of the current article, which very nearly falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and definitely over-emphasises recent events.  —SMALLJIM  00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• One further concern: Given that Lemelson's article describes him as a Greek Orthodox priest, could Orthodox2014 be Lemelson himself? There might be WP:COI in play, which we ought to know. Ravenswing 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates