Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiratae Ventures


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Chiratae Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PROMO: Content made for Advertising, marketing, or public relations purposes. A spinoff VC firm cannot have the notability of it mother company. Qualifies for WP:TOOSOON. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable --Devokewater @  21:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, you might have to give more than 'non notable'. Did you have chance to look at the below notability assessment? Are you agreeing with the nomination that this is WP:PROMO or even WP:TOOSOON? Please substantiate your vote. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ktin (talk) when I first researched this company I felt that it failed WP:COMPANY maybe it was a case of WP:TOOSOON however with subsequent reviews my opinion has changed, let the article be improved + developed. Regards --Devokewater @  09:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets the WP:GNG guidelines based on a simple assessment below of just a handful of sources. Furthermore, the nominator is making an assumption that the subject is notable only for its spinoff from a global venture group, and that is not accurate. The subject is a venture capital firm with significant investments in the Indian startup ecosystem. The range of their investments can also be seen at prominent venture tracking pages including Crunchbase, Bloomberg, and Pitchbook to name a few. Further more, this article has been written with an eye towards being factual and meeting the WP:NPOV guidelines and does not qualify as WP:PROMO. In summary, the [WP:GNG] emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktin (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 August 2020  (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I note you have not referred to the relevant guidelines for companies which is WP:NCORP and as such, your analysis completely missed the two vital sections of WP:NCORP - WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth information on the company and (relevant to your sources) WP:ORGIND which has this to say in relation to "Independent Content":  Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The template you are using is a generic GNG template. The livemint reference is based on "anonymous" sources and fails even as an RS. The indiatimes reference is based on an announcement, fails ORGIND. The thehindu reference is based on an interview with a company executive.  HighKing++ 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources table above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my keep !vote per Ktin's recent ping. All of the sources in the sources table above—The Economic Times, Livemint, and The Hindu—are major Indian newspapers, at least one of which (The Hindu) is described at Perennial sources as generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. While it is true, as noted below, that the articles listed in the sources table are sourced primarily to quotes with people close to the firm, that's not fatal in my view because these are major newspapers that publish serious journalism. And, although they do feature quotes from those close to the firm, they are not merely repackaged press releases, as they include analysis that goes beyond the quotes provided. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Not a single reference cited meets the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based on company announcements, or announcements of their investments by partners, etc, or interviews, none of which meet WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a substitute for a corporate website or the Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate a single reference which meets the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG.  HighKing</b>++ 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC) *Delete: I'm sorry to say that despite appearances this VC lacks significant and independent coverage. Most of the links I found were primary sources/interviews/announcements (which, shockingly, I discovered is the case for everything at Category:Venture capital firms of India -- but, sigh, that's another story..). The Hindu, too, is not infallible, as we've seen multiple times on these pages. Their story is based on this press release with direct quotes picked up from it. I can find mentions of the company but, honestly, not the kind of significant coverage associated with encyclopaedic notability. This seems to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let some time pass; let it breathe; let it affect the zeitgeist. Allow it to make a mark in the industry, to dictate business trends, and be independently reported on, something that captures its relevance -- apart from the bread-and-butter funding stories found in the pink papers. (As an aside, to understand what significant coverage looks like in this sector, one can observe Sequoia Capital India backed by articles like this Bloomberg Quint piece and even better and solid academic sources like this Venture Capital Investments (SAGE Publications, ISBN 9789353884161). The time will, perhaps, eventually come when the reliable sources for Chiratae Ventures will shout "notable". But that time, in my humble opinion, is not now. Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the guidelines allowed at WP:APPNOTE, I am tagging the following users who have been active in recent topical AfDs to expand the available views., , . Copying Admin to ensure transparency. Ktin (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't share the positive view of the sources discussed above, instead regarding these as announcement coverage which falls under the trivial coverage category at WP:CORPDEPTH. My own searches find these and more of the same, including coverage in the past week of investment by CDC Group in a fund, all of which confirms this as a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll have to agree in part that the coverage of the company does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at least with the sources shown till now which have a greater requirements of coverage than WP:GNG to be considered notable. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:NCORP emphasizes the need for coverage about a subject (a company) to be a) Significant b) Independent c) Reliable d) Secondary. All of the news articles about this investment fund meet the above criteria. Now, specifically to the point on WP:CORPDEPTH - Corpdepth can be tested by running the articles against the listing of trivial coverage and proving that this is not trivial coverage. E.g. trivial coverage as WP:CORPDEPTH notes are 'simple listings or compilations', 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage', and 'brief or passing mentions'. You can see that the news items that have been highlighted are clearly not trivial at least based on above criteria. Specifically to the statement about this being a 'firm going about its business'. Absolutely. Almost all firms go about their business, and do not set out with a stated objective to be encyclopedic. But, 'going about their business' in turn can create value that will translate to notability, like this one. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with MaysinFourty's reasoning. CORPDEPTH needs "the level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." It does not seem to be the case here, the sources more or less speak about the same thing. While they may not be trivial, they are routine for any investment fund. --Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MaysinFourty is a sockpuppet. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Withdrawing my vote. The firm has received reliable and non-trivial coverage even after a year. It is to be assessed whether they would meet CORPDEPTH. Ab207 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

TruthLover123 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. These sources are fairly recent. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree. Meets WP;GNG and WP:NCORP due to recent sources.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.