Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BGF Ventures


 * 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 merge to Business Growth Fund. Cerebellum (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

BGF Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apart from some brief churnalistic coverage when this investment fund was launched   I'm unable to find any substantial coverage. I've checked the full version of the Times article (which is also the only mainstream source) and it is only 200 words long. Coverage since then is extremely brief, only mentioning who they have invested in. Unless I'm missing sources, WP:CORP is not met as present. (As an aside, the parent company Business Growth Fund might well be notable e.g. .) SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — 2A02:C7D:499:4200:A52B:158B:49FE:F35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep disagree w/ Delete reasons. it's a legitimate government backed entity in a space I contribute to directly. There are many peers like it and it is noteworthy for its investments here: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bgf-ventures#/entity Misterpottery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Standard advert/directory crap. They haven't even funded a notable startup as far as I can tell. Thank you for introducing me to the word "Churnalism". It perfectly encapsulates the problem I have with promo editors and their sneaky WP:REFBOMBs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergling (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the PROD was contested for clear advertising gains and motivations, not for a genuine article, and I see nothing here but literal published-republished advertising from and for the company, nothing else since, again, this was clearly a motivated and clear advertisement, honestly nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister   talk  01:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. it's one of the most active UK early stage investors and the wikipedia entry helps the startup community easily research who they are what they do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:499:4200:A52B:158B:49FE:F35 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Business Growth Fund Delete I don't see enough coverage that would help pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is about the launch of the venture but nothing much after that. This could place it within the WP:NOTNEWS threshold. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I am fine with a redirect. But I don't think a merge is appropriate as the content is promotional. Let someone write the content on their own using better sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep valid company with significant UK media coverage as noted in the links. Misterpottery (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as corporate spam. Typical of such articles, it does not show any signs of notability or significance and, characteristically, includes ext links in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Business Growth Fund its parent company. An investment fund of £200M surely ought to be notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to the parent company. There isn't enough information for a separate article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Business Growth Fund; I don't see a need for a merge, but, if desired, anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am willing for a delete and redirect or at least redirect at best, because while it's clear this is not independently notable, any other necessary information. SwisterTwister   talk  02:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Business Growth Fund, not enough for a standalone article.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Business Growth Fund, which presently only has passing mentions. This will improve the merge target article. North America1000 20:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Business Growth Fund just a part of it. no need for an article.Light2021 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2016 (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.