Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of any notability. Searches reveal only repurposed text from the source itself. plus some (limited) social media. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United Kingdom.  Velella  Velella Talk  14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the best coverage is behind paywalls. Rathfelder (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * the updated information is accurate and from the BVCA itself as the source Bvca marketing (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bvca marketing clearly doesnt get it. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The BVCA is not a huge organization but it is indeed the main lobbyist for the private equity industry in the UK. Most of the WP:RS are necessarily going to be in the financial press and in the financial pages of the UK broadsheets, but they certainly pass the threshold of WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clearly coverage in the Financial Times, as you might expect, but I dont have a subscription. Rathfelder (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep and Comment. This is referenced and meets general notability guidelines. It was also time to close this as a keep two weeks ago. Your own guidelines say that these discussions are not supposed to drag out for longer than two weeks. Instead, several of these articles are being relisted for a third time. After two weeks, close it as keep or no consensus. To quote from the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.”  It’s time to close this discussion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (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.