Talk:Angel investor/Archives/2014

Proposed merge with Super angel
These are the same topic. There's no need for two articles; super angel should just be a section in Angel investor. Pburka (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do that? Super angel is a specific topic. Angel investors is a different specific topic. Both of them are distinct, and have enough material to stand on their own as complete articles. The vast majority of angels are not super angels. Super angels are not just particularly effective angels, per the sources they are a distinct group that arguably are not angel investors at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A super angel is just a kind of angel investor. If we removed the list of super angels (which is most likely original research), there would nothing more than a short definition in that article. Pburka (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Pburka - it's barely more than a definition of a somewhat colloquial term. Also, the table is cluttered with numerous un-notable people and could never be complete anyway, since the investments are frequently private and may never get publicly reported. jxm (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've undone an attempted merge, two supporters over four months is just not enough discussion to merge a fully-sourced article built by a number of editors. They are truly two different subjects despite some of the misconceptions mentioned so far in the discussion, and dumping that much content about a far more specialized topic into a more general article like this one is imbalanced. Counter to what Jxm says, super angels are a very distinct topic that people in the industry know well, not just a term. For those who don't know, super-angels are a qualitatively differentiated set of serial investors who have a particular method of operation and special knowledge and connections in the tech investment community. A person or group who invests in a series of restaurants, or manufacturing plants, or real estate is simply not a super angel. There is a lot of sourcing on the phenomenon, and many more recent sources that have not yet made it into the article. The group of people considered super-angels is small and bounded. One of the cited sources purports to be a comprehensive list of who all the super angels are. There is always some maintenance that has to be done on list sections of articles because people tend to add stuff, but the standard for the list is that all of the people described as super-angel are sourced as such. Generally there are full WP articles about thems or their firms (which means they are notable) that often mention their status as super-angels and link back to the article. In tech / venture world, many to most super angel investments generally are reported as it builds the brand for both the investor and the company. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The term Super angel is not as widely used as, for example, Archangel - a synonym that describes a serial angel investor. As suggested above, a Super angel at best is a sub-category of a business angel and does not merit being merged. Surfer9 (talk)