Talk:List of venture capital firms/Archive 1

Don't fast-track delete
I object to the proposed fast-track delete, so I'm removing the template. If anyone really thinks the article shouldn't exist, they can go the AFD route.

IMO the presence of a lot of red links is not a good reason to delete a list page. Firstly, lists can give a systematic view of a subject category. Secondly, even if that category is not well-populated with articles (some firms may not even deserve full articles!), the list gives a useful indication of what is in the wikipedia and what isn't.

The U.S. venture capital industry is without any doubt significant enough, both on economic grounds and on cultural grounds, to deserve a thorough wikipedia survey-list of its participants.

I have no doubt that the quality of information on the page will improve with time; and even in the state it is in at the moment, with only the data it now contains, the page is IMO valuable and worth keeping. The only thing that gives me a little concern is that the page should be more transparently systematic, reflecting some stated criteria for inclusion/non-inclusion.

But it shouldn't be deleted, definitely not. Jheald 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC).
 * 9 months later, do you still feel that way? As it stands, it's pretty messy. If nobody maintains it, it's mostly promotional. I'm re-marking it, on the grounds that if nobody can be bothered to revert me -- and please don't hesitate to do so -- it's probably never going to get fixed. I don't see the need for AfD yet. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. You've given the criteria: "This is an unreferenced, somewhat self-promotional list with loads of redlinks, which seems to be totally unmaintained".
 * IMO (as before) those are not sufficient grounds for deletion. WP lists with lots of redlinks are actually quite helpful, as they give WP a way to harvest and place content for which there aren't articles.  Such lists provide raw material that can be gathered by bots into larger lists with capsule information about the members, cf WP's consolidated list of people, or a similar possible WP consolidated list of locations, or WP consolidated list of firms, which - precisely because they do include capsule information about redlinks - can be very useful eg for bots merging data from external sources; or just to give some idea of the depth of scope of WP coverage.
 * - Unreferenced. Probably by pure article count, something like 99.99% of WP is under-referenced.  I would imagine even weighting by usage, at least 95% is seriously under-referenced.  This shouldn't be a hanging offence for an article.  If people care enough that it is underreferenced or misleading, they will complain, (or start adding references).  If they don't complain or start doing anything about it, then its being unreferenced is unfortunate, but maybe not too severe in the overall scheme of things.
 * - Self-promotional. If it's encouraging people into making their first edits, that's not the worst thing in the world.  Are these entries doing harm ?
 * The key issue, it seems to me, is this: Is this article providing such a skewed and unbalanced listing, that it is materially misleading to readers?  If that is the case, then it is serious.  Otherwise, I think that so long as there is some potentially useful information here -- even if the article is pretty much unmaintained, and I don't propose to keep it on my watchlist -- then I don't see the harm in keeping it.  And if somebody does take it in hand, so much the better.  Jheald 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of pages may be underreferenced, and normally, I'm ok with it. And yes, of course we can tolerate redlinks. And yes, lots of WP pages are unmaintained. And sure, some people do a bit of self-promotion, so what.
 * It's really the combined whole of all these factors which gives me concern. Redlink: no internal source, nobody has bothered writing anything else on WP about this company. Unreferenced: no external source. Self-promotion: people adding entries have a commercial conflict of interest. Unmaintained: nobody else is paying attention. In short, I can't think of any check or balance that is in place here. I think this is pretty exceptional. I'm not going to proceed with any deletion process, but yes, I have concerns that we are misleading our dear readers. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled by this page and would like to give me my 2c worth: I would love to have an article about venture capitalist firms in Wiki, so the article is a good thing. It's a "starter" article, so maybe we should ring the advertising bells and invite people to add content? Looks like we don't have critical mass yet for a clean-up effort, but once we've gotten enough content I believe this could become a valuable article. Many, many start-ups are considering venture-capitalists. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

worldwide, threshold
Is there any threshold of capital managed or anything to join this list? I imagine as most English Wikipedia users are American this article is overfilled with that market information. However, I could provide the same quantity of VC firms operating only in Poland basing for example on http://www.bankier.pl/firma/vc/narzedzia/katalog/ and other Google results.
 * Right now there isn't any threshold -- but there really should be. At the least I'd like to know that there's actually reliable info about them. Notice how most capital managed figures are totally unsubstantiated! I welcome any suggestions. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion
It makes no sense for there to be so many red links on this list; I am going to be bold and remove those.

Going forward, anyone considering adding a firm to this list should keep in mind the following from the Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline:

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

To test the reasonableness of your expectations, you encouraged to create the article on the firm first and then add it to this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WHat?
There are many more firms than this. Turnerzworld, etc. Don't just list the massive firms such as Sequoia, this is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. 60.238.75.14 (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Comprehensive encyclopedia"... You mean an encyclopedia about everything? No it's not. See WP:NOT and WP:N for starters. --  At am a chat 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would recommend adding Khosla Ventures, and updating the Kleiner Perkins management to include John Doerr and Al Gore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmilne (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just suggest table headings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuffman3 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This list is not valuable
As it is currently constructed, this list is not useful in any way. I would propose a complete rework of this list along certain parameters:
 * A list of all "notable" venture firms as defined by having an article on Wikipedia (see Category:Venture capital firms and therefore having passed Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Could be sorted alphabetically or by year founded
 * A list of the "largest" 25 or 50 venture firms using some third party measurement of assets under management or capital invested. See: List of private equity fund of funds or List of private equity firms.  The only problem with this is that size is not always the primary item of importance in venture.  I would look for someone to come up with an idea as to a neutral and verifiable measurement for this ranking.

As it stands today this list is relatively arbitrary. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ •  TALK  ◄| 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I see what someone has done since this comment was made, but the truth is that this isn't a list of "notable venture capital firms", it is a "list of notable venture capital firms that somebody could be bothered to write a Wikipedia article about". What purpose does it serve? As the list is incomplete, what is the point of being able to sort the rows? Yes, a firm might appear at the bottom of the capital list, does that make it the smallest firm in the world? No. It may appear at the top of the year list, does that make it the oldest in the world? No.  Pyrop e  14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorting of dollar amount in managed funds is rendered useless by inconsistent units. Since millions and billions are used here and the list is sorted only by number (with no regard to unit), smaller amounts often show up higher (e.g. "1,000M" shows up above "1.4B") when list of VC firms is sorted in descending order of managed fund dollar amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.81.96 (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability
What is considered the overall threshold for notability for these firms? They have articles, but clicking into most of the articles reveals that, at some point, a single-purpose account (probably an employee or someone hired to write the article) came in, created the article, added very poor references (mostly self-referenced to PR web sites, internal web sites, and catalogs), added the firm here, and then disappeared. Are we a platform for venture capital firms to promote themselves? -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, a firm/company doesn't qualify for a separate, stand-alone article if it doesn't satisfy the relevant notability guideline: WP:COMPANY. If the article doesn't satisfy the notability guideline, see WP:FAILN. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of venture capital firms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910034433/http://www.findventure.com/bd/austin-tx/2509-austin-ventures/ to http://www.findventure.com/bd/austin-tx/2509-austin-ventures/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of venture capital firms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426221730/http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/The-5-Biggest-Investors-In-Social-Media.aspx to http://financialedge.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/The-5-Biggest-Investors-In-Social-Media.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714180117/http://www.nexitventures.com/about/funds.html to http://www.nexitventures.com/about/funds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018
"Please include venture capital firm Xecced on the list, as it is currently missing from the list.

Name: Xecced Ventures Location: London Year Established: 2009 Partners: Muhtari Adanan and Li Yang Industries of Focus: Tech and Life Sci Amount of Funds Managed: £35m

Source: https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/104508-91 Source: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/xecced" 169.159.96.50 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per the notice at the top of this talk page regarding firms without articles. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018
Include Off the Grid Ventures in this list.

name: Off the Grid Ventures location: San Francisco year established: 2016 partners: David Mes, Benjamin Orthlieb, Christopher Haire, Mat Peyron industry of focus: Enterprise Tech and Fintech funds managed: Chris haire (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per the notice at the top of this talk page regarding firms without articles. Sam Sailor 12:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019
Please add Costanoa Ventures. Location: Palo Alto, CA. Year established: 2012. Partners: Greg Sands, Mark Selcow. Industries of Focus: Early Stage Venture Capital, SaaS, Enterprise, Infrastructure. Assets Under Management: $600M. 2601:646:100:429C:FC9C:929B:A32F:B7C2 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please see the top of this page explaining that firms should have articles first DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019
Please change the list of partners for Maveron from "Howard Schultz, Dan Levitan, Pete McCormick, Clayton Lewis, Jason Stoffer, David Wu[39]" to "Dan Levitan, Jason Stoffer, David Wu, Anarghya Vardhana, Cat Lee, Pete McCormick, Elise Hebb" Source: https://www.maveron.com/team/ Catleecatlee (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 12:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019
Add Jackson Square Ventures to the list. https://jsv.com San Francisco, CA Founded 2011 Partners: Josh Breinlinger, Greg Gretsch, Pete Solvik, Victor Echevarria Industries of Focus: SaaS, Marketplaces AUM: $240M

https://www.pehub.com/2019/05/jackson-square-targets-150-mln-for-third-fund/ Jbreinlinger (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This list only includes entries with an existing Wikipedia article based on multiple independent sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and see WP:WTAF for an essay with some additional advice. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019
Please add Creandum to the list.

Name : Creandum Location : Stockholm, Berlin, San Francisco Year established: 2003 Partners : Fredrik Cassel, Johan Brenner, Staffan Helgesson (General Partners) Industries of focus : Early stage venture capital Assets under management : n/a

185.102.16.51 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC) 185.102.16.51 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This list only includes entries with an existing Wikipedia article based on multiple independent sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and see WP:WTAF for an essay with some additional advice. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020
Update information about OpenOcean (VC firm): change founded 2008 to 2009, add Ekaterina Almasque as Partner (in addition after Patrik, Tom etc.), to change 100 million to €145 million. 2001:14BA:1E5:2900:F868:53A2:8274:F510 (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Several different sources say different things about the founding date.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Can I Log In (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020
Please add Costanoa Ventures between "Columbus Nova Technology Partners" and "Crosslink Capital".

Location: Palo Alto Year Established: 2012 Partners: Greg Sands, Jim Wilson, Mark Selcow, Martina Lauchengo, Michelle McHargue Industries of Focus: Data Driven Intelligence & SaaS, Future Workforce & Marketplace, Rethinking Infrastructure & Security, Rise of the Developer Kristen Hoff (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the top of this talk page and WP:WTAF for inclusion criteria. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020
- ! SV Health Investors HnaMud (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please can you add SV Health Investors to this page. Thank you very much! https://svhealthinvestors.com/people


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:See the top of this talk page and WP:WTAF for inclusion criteria.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020
Please add Hunniwell Lake Ventures, www.hunniwell.com, to the list of Venture Capital Firms. Hunniwell Lake Ventures is a venture capital firm that invests solely in medical devices.

Name is Hunniwell Lake Ventures Website is www.hunniwell.com Based in Palo Alto, California, USA. Founded in 2019 by Richard Fang and Daniel Teo. Industry of Focus is Medical Devices Partners include Ricard Fang, Daniel Teo, David Cao, and David Schechter. Assets under management $25 million. 2601:C6:CD80:47B0:EC95:9FD4:BA4E:F3F2 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTPROMO. The only companies to be included are those which are notable, i.e. meet WP:GNG and have a proper article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020
Hi, I'd like to add an entry for Qualcomm Ventures on this list. Here are the details: Name: Qualcomm Ventures / Location: San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; Israel, Latin America, China, India, Korea / Year established: 2020 / Partners: Quinn Li / Industries of focus: 5G, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, Automotive, Internet of Things, Digital Health / Assets under Management: $1B. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm_Ventures

Thanks! Julia Jduvall08 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see WP:WINARS.  Seagull123  Φ  09:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we use our website as a source? https://www.qualcommventures.com/. This would substantiate most claims above. Also, here's an outside source that confirmed date founded as well as areas of focus and locations as well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/moiravetter/2018/04/29/qualcomm-ventures-on-running-a-unicorn-farm/#3ca1a879c2d3

Just checking on the above. Thanks. --199.106.103.55 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the notice at the top of this talkpage, which clearly states: "Venture capital firms without a corresponding Wikipedia article are subject to immediate removal from this article. Before adding a venture capital firm, ensure that it has an existing article, or create the article first using the organizations and companies notability guideline." Jack Frost (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. There is an article on Qualcomm Ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm_Ventures. Am I missing something here?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Can you help me understand what is preventing this request from moving forward? We have an article, a legit company website and a source article from Forbes (also, could provide many other credit sources). I didn't see in the requirements any need to create a consensus. Any help would be much appreciated!
 * ✅. Please find a secondary source for your 1 billion claim. Also note that Forbes contributor articles are not considered reliable (WP:FORBESCON). ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 09:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021
Add Expa to list of American venture capital funds - Add Expa as a top Early Stage investor (Change Alumni Ventures Group to Expa) - Expa has 77 early stage investments - 24.18.224.29 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also needs to have an article on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021
Add: Sutter Hill Ventures https://www.shv.com/ 98.37.132.239 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Needs to be notable and have a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021
Please add March Capital to the list of VCs in the Americas. 73.25.167.49 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The company needs to have a Wikipedia article first. See the note at the top of this page.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - 24 May 2022
The tables that dominate the top of this list page contain outdated data. Specifically, "Assets under management and dry powder" references figures from a single report that is now five years old, while the source used for the "Deal flow" tables dates back to 2018. I would like to propose that these tables be updated or wholly replaced with more current information. As an employee of Insight Partners I have a COI and do not intend to make direct edits to this page. That said, here is an example of newer figures from another source that helps illustrate our issue with this page in its current form: https://www.venturecapitaljournal.com/vcj-50-the-top-venture-fundraisers-of-2021-are-making-waves/ And here is a different view of several potentially relevant lists from 2021: https://news.crunchbase.com/news/most-active-vc-startup-investors-tiger-global-softbank-y-combinator/ I am sure there will be many opinions on what sources are best used to populate ranked tables on this page, but I believe we can all agree that what's currently shown needs a refresh at minimum to be useful. MollyInsight (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @MollyInsight Replaced the first table with updated info. Harder to find reliable sources for the other tables. Duke Gilmore (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023
Add "Thursday Ventures" to the Americas list of venture capital firms. Add "Kinfolk" to a new Africa list of venture capital firms. 174.232.172.2 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: They must be notable enough for Wikipedia articles to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023
Add to early stage/ seed table by deal flow:

Firm - Cur8 Capital Headquarters - London Dealflow - 70

Add to list of companies:

EMEA Cur8 Capital 195.224.194.36 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It must either appear on the top 10 list cited, or be notable enough for an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023
Can you add the VC FORWARD.one to the EMEA list? it is based in the Netherlands and the webaddress is www.forward.one

Thanks! Riemersmink (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see response to similar request above Cannolis (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024
VC company name: Blue Ocean Capital - www.blueoceancap.org 104.203.64.81 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done:Unless the company is sufficiently notable to have its own Wikipedia article, it is not sufficiently notable to include here. PianoDan (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)