Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Equity Partners


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Equity Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was originally speedy deleted as an advert. That aspect has been corrected with the new article, but it does not make a credible assertion of notability. The references show, simply, that this is a jobbing venture capital company doing its day to day work. Fiddle  Faddle  15:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please show me how this entry is different to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draper_Fisher_Jurvetson or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Venture  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomico_Ventures  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balderton_Capital   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmark_Capital  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Catalyst  or any number of other similar pages please? i am happy to amend this so that it fits but I can't see the differences Scottishwiki (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If I could also add the following news articles from FT http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5254c50-a40d-11df-a872-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cgKSpVi2 and the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/business/top-40-sep-firms-grow-sales-and-jobs-1-1355393 Scottishwiki (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I would also like to add http://www.scotsman.com/business/management/scottish-equity-partners-to-sponsor-eve-muirhead-1-2944771 Scottishwiki (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Can the "up for deletion" post be removed from the page please?Scottishwiki (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We certainly have other articles in this subjectt hat would also need to be removed, but the ones mentioned here are leading companies with references for their status. This one is a firm whose only significance is that it, along with others, has invested in some significant companies. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG, look in google books. I've even heard of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Notable" is not the same as "remarkable". The subject does indeed seem to be an unremarkable company doing its day to day work, but enough independent sources have noted it to make it clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet notability requirements due to reports such as plus shorter references and possibly privateequityonline.com and the FT story (which I don't have access to). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- One of the difficulties in company finance is the stage where a company has become too big to be financed by the directors (with bank loans), but not big enough to be floated on the stock market. This is where venture capitalists such as this company fit in.  Looking at the company website, it is clear that it is approving investments of a few million pounds more than once a month.  This is cealrly notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG and ORG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2013 (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.