Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion Capital LLP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lion Capital LLP

Lion Capital LLP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:CORP. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • keep apparently doesn't fail WP:CORP [1], [2]. --W.marsh 00:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This should not be confused with the american "Lion Capital Group" which apparently had a controversial bankruptcy in the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis. --W.marsh 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep come on, Cool Blue: you afd'd this article 1 minute after I created it? Of course there weren't any references. This is a major European Private equity firm, and very notable. UnitedStatesian 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, tell that in the article, not here. It doesn't look notable by the way it is stated in the article. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Give a guy more than one minute, and he will! :) Now that the article is more than 3 hours old, and referenced, how about revisiting it (and your nomination). UnitedStatesian 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even as currently referenced, all it really shows is that it's a company. Granted, it's a company that's bigger than one I could incorporate tomorrow, but there's a difference between verifying existence and demonstrating notability. If there's something more notable about it, I would like to be shown as much in the article. Lemonsawdust 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, per Traynor. I feel like an idiot for not even bothering with a UK Google. I'll blame it on force of habit this time and try to be more observant in the future. Now that I actually did an appropriate search, this company is clearly notable, and I'm not as smart as I thought I was. Lemonsawdust 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The article can be expanded with the given references by anyone concerned enough to do so. Notability has nothing to do with the content of the article. It touches only on whether the subject has been written about elsewhere, and by whom, and how detailed those writeups are. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 09:59Z
    • Also, this is a buyout fund... all it really does is buy companies and sell them (hopefully at a profit) after warehousing them for a while and trying to increase their value. Not much else short of a bankruptcy is going to get them news coverage. A reasonable expectation for a claim of notability for such a company is that it has bought/sold multiple notable companies, and this fund has done that. At any rate, the multiple sources show this meets the only real guideline here, WP:CORP. --W.marsh 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: For pity's sake, filing an AfD one freaking minute after the article's creation? Possibly that minute could have been spent looking this company up on UK Google, where there are hits referencing the company's multi-billion euro buyout of Cadbury Schweppes Euro beverages division. There are hits from the Financial Times, from Bloomberg, Deloitte, the India Tribune ... this is just plain careless nomination at best.  RGTraynor  15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this is one of the biggest companies in Europe and I doubt there's a single person in this AfD who doesn't use at least one product of a company owned by them every day. And (on my pet hobby horse) how can an AfD within a minute of creation be justified? And how can the nominator have checked them out to find out they "fail WP:CORP" within that minute? Clear bad faith nom. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Come to that, I was hitting the nom's talk page to ask what was going on, and found that he has a strong pattern of doing this: I found outright complaints that he filed several prods or AfDs in less than a minute of creation, in more than one case with prima facie notability there on the page. (It wouldn't occur to me, for one thing, to file on a NASL soccer player who just by that fact alone clears WP:BIO). I wouldn't call the nom "bad faith," per se, but I worry that this guy spends hours refreshing Special:Newpages every few seconds and thinks an award is handed out for the fastest deletions. It's a chronic pattern that people just nominate (or !vote) without performing even the most casual fact-checking, but this is especially egregious.  RGTraynor  15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Of course notable. Does not fail WP:CORP.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy KeepNotable company--Slogankid 19:08, 20 April 2007 (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.