Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glencoe hedge fund

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 of the debate was delete. (article was already speedied)-- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glencoe hedge fund

How is this different from any other hedge fund? Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fund looks to be very small and has no track record. Nothing notable about its strategy. --JJay 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Most convertible arbitrage funds are delta/market neutral and are stuck because there is too much money using the same approach. This year a lot of traditional convertible arbitrage funds closed shop causing an implosion in convertible securities pricing. It is for the first time in more than 10 years since conservative delta neutral funds displayed 30% + volatility without any external market events like a surge in interest rates (1994)or the Russinan defaults in 1989. Glencoe is different. It starts off as delta neutral and becomes directional. The CSFB convertible arbitrage index representing well established large funds with a long track record did 19% between oct 2001 and oct 2003. The invesment club experiment did 61% and Glencoe continues the 30% + annualized track record through Dec 2004. It ranked #1 in AbsoluteReturn magazine on an annualized compounded basis through end of Dec 2004.

As a side comment to the previous 2 where does it say that a fund has to have a long track record or be large in order for it to publish information about it on Wikipedia? or maybe the 2 gentlemen above work in sales for competitors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.2.90 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC).

• Comment. I'll start by pointing out that Glencoe previously passed through Afd where it was deleted after a unanimous vote. [[1]] The article therefore may be a Speedy Delete per G4.

Regarding your question, I suggest you read WP:CORP. Glencoe seems to fail at every level. It has not received any notable press coverage. It is not a component of any of the leading hedge fund indexes including CSFB/Tremont, Dow Jones Hedge Fund Index [[2]] or the S&P Hedge Fund Index [[3]]. It does not hold a 20% share of its market, etc.

Wikipedia does generally preclude advertising and self-promotion as per Wikipedia:Spam. It requires notability for inclusion. These were the reasons for the article's deletion in September. Further, your discussion of the fund's strategy, while interesting, hardly seems unique and is largely unverifiable. It therefore qualifies as OR.

Finally, I am not making millions working for a hedge fund. I do not work in the financial industry. If I did, it is highly unlikely I would be trying to plug my firm through Wikipedia. --JJay 17:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Per JJay, have tagged article for speedy deletion under CSD G4. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 06:32, 28 October 2005 (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.