Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoxton 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hoxton Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP & generally WP:TOOSOON, with $40M & 4 employees. Corporate 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 07:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I'm in the process of updating this as well as the partners. This is a meaningful fund as it has two of the largest UK successes in recent times, Deliveroo and Darktrace and they have substantially grown assets over time. This fund is a peer to other funds included on Wikipedia such as US Firms Runa Capital, Baseline Ventures,Initialized Capital, Lerer Hippeau Ventures, Social Capital, Notion Capital, Passion Capital etc and is meaningful in the European market for its performance. Very few funds have completed investments into multiple billion dollar companies in Europe.Misterpottery (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are a lot of references, many of which are not trivial. The WSJ article goes in to a fair amount of depth as does the Business Post article.  The company seems to be significant in its own right as well, not just a run-of-the mill company.  I know this isn't valued at Wikipedia, but the creator of the article (Misterpottery) has done a lot of hard work in creating it, and seems to have also improved the article substantially since this discussion started.  That should count for something. -Mparrault (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument of there are a lot of references is meaningless and does not count towards establishing notability. We need references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Mentioning "the WSJ article" or "the Business Port article" without providing links is not helpful and does nothing to forward your argument as nobody knows for sure what you are referring to. Can you perhaps post the links here?  HighKing++ 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete current version as promotional. A new version can always be created, using sources unconnected to the company. "Mr Kniaz", indeed! Deb (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing to meet WP:NCORP. As Deb notes, it could be recreated (hopefully without the promotional/?COI bits) if it becomes notable in the future. Ifnord (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2018 (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.