Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBK Investments

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 Keep. --Daniel Olsen 06:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBK Investments[edit]

HBK Investments manages private investment funds that can only be offered to qualified investors under very limited circumstances. Under the U.S. securities laws, HBK Investments is prohibited from holding itself out to the public as an investment manager, and it is illegal for interests in its funds to be offered through any form of general solicitation. Accordingly, this posting may violate the U.S. securities laws, which could have serious consequences for HBK and for Wikipedia. Rjh827 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a rather silly nomination. One, the company isn't offering funds through this article. This article is just a normal company article like any other. Two, even if it did, the violator of the law would be whoever made the posting, and not Wikipedia; we aren't an arm of the SEC and we are not obliged to trip over ourselves making sure none of our editors violates any of the the securities laws in all countries. (Of course we'd take it down if it violated Wikipedia policies.) If there were a legal problem with this article, the correct stance for Wikipedia to take would be to take down the article once the SEC (or anyone else) were to obtain a court order forcing it to do so. Tempshill 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A wikipedia article is not an offer to sell securities. By the implied standards of the nomination, no privately held company could have an article on wikipedia. Uucp 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One what grounds are you asking for a speedy keep? "Speedy" criteria are limited. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The proposal to delete has nothing to do with the article. He wants it deleted because it is illegal to offer securities without registration, though the article never offers securities. That's like proposing deletion because the article contains nothing but a Goatse photograph, when the article doesn't contain a Goatse photo. There is nothing here to discuss. Uucp 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Tempshill says, its a company description article, like many others. scope_creep 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Robovski 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be "Kept", I urgently suggest that someone enter details as set out by User:Rjh827 on the article's main space, so that the full facts are on the record. -- Simon Cursitor

What are you talking about? Rjh827 offers no facts about HBK at all, only the general observations that unregistered securities can not be offered to the public, a total irrelevancy, as the article has nothing to do with the offering of securities. Uucp 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. Notability not established within article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely expand. The nominator's rationale is absurd since security offers can only be made by prospectus. WP does not hold itself out as a repository for prospectuses. However, this particular hedge fund is really notable only for its involvement in an SEC investigation. So that should probably be in the article. Montco 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I disagree with your thoughts about why the firm is notable -- HBK is secretive, as a lot of hedge funds are, so it makes headlines only when investigated by the government. In the financial world, however, it is notable for its size. There aren't a whole lot of $10+ billion hedge funds around, and the ones that exist have a lot of influence. Uucp 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to have gotten alot of press (as controversial or otherwise) from financial publications like The Street. --Oakshade 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.