Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bregal Sagemount


 * 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. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per Bearian Deville (Talk) 02:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Bregal Sagemount

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing but press releases. accepted at AfC nevertheless. As a very general guide, private equity firms with assets of less than $1 billion are very unlikely to be notable--not that this is a guideline precisely, but most AfD discussions have ended up that way.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments on the Bregal Sagemount article. Always happy to be working to make this a better article and would appreciate some feedback on how to do so. A few things to highlight:


 * The reviewer mentions that there are nothing but press releases in the article; I'm not sure where this comes from, as the only references (save one link to the Bregal Sagemount website) are to articles written in the reputable financial press (for example, Bloomberg). No press releases included.


 * The other comment relates to the size of the fund, with $1 billion being a guideline for whether or not a fund is notable. I'm not sure how this guideline has developed over time or how it originated, but I do think it is somewhat odd.  Many firms that do not raise $1 billion+ funds would be considered notable to those familiar with the industry.  To take an extreme example, Sequoia Capital, one of the worlds most well-known private equity / venture capital firms, only raised a $1 billion+ fund in 2009 after investing across several smaller funds for years in companies such as Apple, Google, Cisco, Zappos, and PayPal.

Thanks much!

Michaelkosty (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Bloomberg references says only that Yoon left his previous position. It does not even mention this company. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards weak keep is not an example of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? The $1 billion cutoff seems completely arbitrary. If this fund is allocated and they add a second of equal size (meeting the $1 billion threshold) will the firm then be deemed notable? Listen, it's a new firm led by significant people in the industry and it's making some waves. $500 million isn't chump change and it will be interesting to see how their investments pan out (or don't). I think the subject is worth including and will almost certainly become more notable as there are additional developments and coverage of their investments and funding operations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Candleabracadabra. According to WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it passes notability.  The 1/5 Billion line is not set in stone, to garble my metaphors. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2014 (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.