Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflexion Private Equity


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Inflexion Private Equity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article about a firm with  weak sources for notability. That's not surprising, for investment companies are not usually notable at $2 billion assets.

A list of "notable investments" is improper content, & trying to get notability by name-dropping.. Everyone who has even some mutual fund shares has some notable investments. And it even says that some of its investments were in firms that were "fasted growing", which is borrowing notability about something that isn't even notable, for any small firm can easily be "fastest growing" if it starts out low enough.

The references are to routine business notices, not about the company. There are quite a few of them, but they're not substantial.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as the article is currently questionable overall for the applicable notability and improvements with my searches finding the expected coverage from News, browsers, Highbeam and finally Books (with this last one only being 1 business listing). SwisterTwister   talk  07:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While some of the sources might be acceptable, the article reads like promotional advertising and is therefore missing Wikipedia's inclusion criteriaAtlantic306 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Editor doing various COI promotional editing Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 1 March 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.