Talk:Better Society Capital

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Speedy Deletion

Tagging an entity with over 86k GHits for speedy deletion within 2 minutes of a stub's creation must be something of a record for trigger-happy behaviour :-). Please use the myriad of sources and improve the article, don't whack things even if you might not like them. NBeale (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a record. And Ghits mean nothing, if not reflected in the article. Generally, it would be considered a bit hasty to tag articles having no context or content within the first ten or so minutes. The Big Society Bank was tagged as promotional, due to the attempt to establish notability through speculation of future events. Wikipedia is not a news source or public relations outlet. I think the article would best be added to the encyclopedia once it truly becomes notable. While I often work on improving various articles, I don't spend my time with those that meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion due to the promotional nature. Best regards, Cind.amuse 11:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:BEFORE - that nomination was a clear voliation of policy. The result was speedy keep but really! Please be less trigger happy. Best wishes. NBeale (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santander

What is said here about Santander is misleading. Santander withdrew from "Project Merlin" which was a wider discussion between the UK banks and the government, of which the Big Society Bank was only one item. NBeale (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Greetings, I am a communications adviser to Big Society Capital. I would like to suggest an overhaul to this page to make it more useful, factual. For example, Big Society Capital was launched in 2012, and reference to the Big Society Bank is probably confusing and irrelevant - perhaps this should have its own stub?. A section referring to the UK social investment market would also be good to build context around the work of Big Society Capital. AndrewRobinson42 —Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these issues seems to have been resolved. The mention of a Big Society Bank seems relevant as part of the history development of Big Society Capital, and isn't sufficiently independently notable (as it didn't eventuate, as far as I'm aware; see WP:CRYSTAL). Klbrain (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]