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. The fact that the page's creator and main editor have a conflict of interest does not nullify notability. The sources provided have been carefully scrutinized proving notability, it is now up to editors to ensure that the page remain neutral. J04n( talk page) 00:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bridges Ventures

Bridges Ventures (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional There may be enough refs to show notability , but too many of them are general., or mere notices. The ed moved it from AfC themselves after it was declined there. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've asked the author if they are being paid for their edits. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 01:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Author has confirmed they work for the company in question. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 02:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • They've been informed about the conflict of interest guideline and they continue to edit the article anyway. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 02:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as everything still suggests questionability, examining the article overall still found it too advertorial and unacceptable. This has been deleted before, but as G7, nothing convincing for any notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have removed promotional content. AhrisLumb ( talk) 01:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This comment is basing their Keep simply from the fact they have made a few changes but not explicitly commenting in-depth about anything else, including about the still eminent questionability. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: AhrisLumb ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Note that the 1 Keep vote is simply based from their improvements, but my examining this, still found nothing close to the needed substance; instead, it found only expected news, including of funding and other financial activities....which also then include starting company news and finances, something of course suggesting it's not yet convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• The Wikipedia article contains links to a book that discusses the subject in detail (Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil) and reliable sources like The Guardian and Financial Times that discuss the company's history. That the company was discussed in detail in a book strongly establishes that it is notable. Cunard ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Questionably notable at best, promotional advert at worst.— azuki ( talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Please point out how the article is promotional so I can edit the article to address any concerns. I reviewed the article and find it neutrally written. Cunard ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Vandekerckhove, Wim; Leys, Jos; Alm, Kristian; Scholtens, Bert; Signori, Silvana; Schäfer, Henry, eds. (2012). Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil. Vol. 31. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 119–120. ISBN  9400740700. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The book notes:

     Bridges Ventures is a UK venture capital investor 'with a social mission' endeavouring to achieve social or environmental aims as well as attractive returns for investors. Bridges Ventures was launched in 2002 by Apax Partners and 3i (two leading UK private equity groups) together with the entrepreneur Tom Singh. Two funds have been raised: Fund I (£40 m) and Fund II (£75 m), which was oversubscribed. Invested firms must be located in the most deprived 25% of the UK or must produce strong social benefits in sectors such as health care, education, and the environment (Young Foundation, 2008).

     To date, Bridges Ventures has invested in 33 firms and Fund I has achieved 3 successful exits (Bridges Ventures 2009): Harlands (a firm that provides self-adhesive labelling solutions, based in Hull, which is among the 2% most deprived areas of England; IRR: 84%); SimplySwitch (a free online and telephone-based price comparison and switching service that helps consumers find the most economical gas, electricity, broadband, and home or mobile phone suppliers; IRR: 165%), and HS Atec (a distributor of new spare parts for heavy goods vehicles and trailers, based in Sheffield, one of the most underinvested areas of the UK; IRR: 29%).

  2. Mathiason, Nick (2009-11-14). "Venturing into new territory - capitalism with a conscience". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     Veteran private equity tycoon Sir Ronald Cohen talks glowingly of the transforming power of entrepreneurialism, which, he argues, represents the best ladder out of poverty. Putting his theory into practice is Michele Giddens.

     Giddens is a founding director of Bridges Ventures, a venture capital firm which Sir Ronald chairs, that invests either in businesses located in the poorest parts of Britain, or in enterprises with a social or environmental mission.

     ...

     Bridges Ventures' most spectacular deal was when the firm sold price comparison website Simplyswitch to the Daily Mail, making a whopping 165% return. "The investors got 22 times their money," Giddens says proudly in the airy boardroom of her west London offices.

     ...

     A major part of Bridges's focus is property regeneration. Among its businesses are low-price gyms and waste-to-energy centres. Its highest-profile investment is the 200-bed Hoxton hotel in trendy east London. It is hardly the most deprived area. Does this raise doubts over whether Bridges is stretching its social purpose credentials?

  3. Chassany, Anne-Sylvaine (2013-10-06). "Bridges Ventures crosses funding hurdle". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-07-25.

     The article notes:

     Bridges Ventures was set up in 2002 with the help of Sir Ronald, co-founder of the buyout house Apax Partners, who chaired the first meeting last week of the Social Impact Investment Taskforce, launched at the G8 meeting in Washington.

     It has more than $500m in assets under management. Bridges’ investors include pension funds, wealthy families and endowments.

     In June, it nearly quadrupled its initial investment selling The Gym, which operates a chain of low-cost gyms in deprived areas, to Phoenix Equity Partners, for about £100m.

     It also sold Whelan Refining, a waste company, in March for nearly five times its initial investment, and Pure Washrooms, a hand sanitiser maker for more than three times.

     Last year, it returned nine times its eight-year investment in the Hoxton Hotel in Shoreditch, an area of London that used to be deprived but has been gentrified in recent years.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bridges Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• I reviewed the article and do not find it promotional. It is neutrally written and sourced to independent reliable sources. Cunard ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Examining all of this still finds it to be thin, especially comparing to the current article's sources of simply local news about events and local activities. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The 2012 Springer Science+Business Media book Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil is not "local news". The Guardian article is not "local news". The Financial Times article is not "local news". All three of these sources are in the article. Cunard ( talk) 05:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. May or may not be notable, but we should not accept content solely written by people with a commercial WP:COI. Somebody else can recreate it from scratch if they care enough about the topic.  Sandstein  16:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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.