Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craft 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 keep. The consensus is that the article meets the general notability guidelines and could be improved by anyone, paid editing or otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Craft Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * (ran)

Vanity paid editing piece about venture capital fundsters launching in 2017. Mundane financial pages coverage plus bloggy bits = GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Leaving a redirect to Jeff Fluhr might be advisable. Carrite (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

See, this is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia and known paid editing, articles which would never get picked on otherwise get deleted regardless if they meet notability requirements. You can't be honest about it. I would never produce content which I didn't think met basic content guidelines. Being covered to write something makes no difference whatsoever to the content. If I'm not permitted to do this work then I have no alternative but to go back to retired, I was hoping to raise something to continue running my contests.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * One fundamental problem of paid editing is that one's notion of what meets notability standards becomes rather amorphous. One ends up writing about things that one ordinarily wouldn't in order to cash the check; in this case, an unmemorable, non-significantly covered in the press, venture capital company started just last year. Are the principals notable? Doubtlessly, if one digs. This entity? I do not think so, nor would you, in all likelihood, if you were able to step back and take an unbiased view of the available sourcing. Wikipedia is not here to be anyone's career or cash cow. If you can not afford to do it more than an hour or two a week, that is the world in which we live. If you do choose to engage in paid editing (and I have done it myself so I would know whereof I speak) you have absolutely got to do a better job than this filtering out the chaff from the wheat, even if that means not cashing as many checks. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article already existed. I simply improved the information we have on it using reliable sources regardless. I was just beginning to plan a big American contest, core articles etc which badly need the work. If I'm not permitted to do the occasional paid work here and to be honest with people then we lose out on thousands of articles as a result, it pales in comparison. Is it a brilliant article full of detailed coverage, no? Does it pass GNG. In my opinion, yes. It is headed by a very notable investor who used to be the COO of Paypal and has enough mentions in reliable sources to narrowly pass requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Err...Redirect to Jeff Fluhr, perhaps? Per WP:ATD. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense, he's not the CEO.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does he have to be the CEO? It just has to be a valid search term, which it probably would be for all three of 'em. Incidentally, I don't personally think that if an article is paid for (and that disclosed) it should be automatically deleted. It's articles for undisclosed payments that are generally burnt. ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a better redirect target, offer it. If you have evidence that this firm meets GNG, present it. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has 12 sources, just about meets WP:NCORP, and is currently neutrally written. The company has assets of $350 million and although it has invested some money into some kind of tokenization platform, it is not itself a startup or a crypto business. This is a relatively traditional investment company covered in the mainstream press and run by notable businesspeople from other large companies.
 * The issue of whether Dr. Blofeld is an evil mastermind is incidental here in this AfD about the article. Regardless disclosed paid editing is allowed and he didn't even create the article in the first place. There are genuinely masses of paid editors, perhaps a quarter of all new company articles that I approve at AfC are likely to be paid for or written by an employee, and that is after rejecting most of them as spam. The only surprise is that Dr. Blofeld doesn't appear to work for Craft Ventures or a PR company. For some reason he wants to do unpaid editing as well, which is highly unusual but you don't see me complaining about it.
 * I will point out that even undisclosed paid articles are not deleted for being written by a paid editor, they just happen to also be spam in most cases and eligible for G11 deletion. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's prevalent on here, and often done by inexperienced editors from PR firms who are only here to promote their client or company. If experienced, neutral editors here were paid to write business articles frankly the site would be massively better off. I have minimum standards, I've already turned down a few articles for the near future which aren't notable. If I made enough I'd invest it back into the project and come up with a business contest to clean up POV bad paid editing jobs and get regulars to write them to a good standard or help guide struggling PR editors in the drafts to write good, neutral articles. I would rather it was done in an honest, professional manner which benefits both Wikipedia and the company and I am trusted to write neutral content which meets guidelines. Craft are not looking for a gushing vanity piece, they simply wanted a better looking, more comprehensive article from an encyclopedic viewpoint, so I tried to do that with the sourcing available, nothing wrong with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If experienced, neutral editors here were paid to write business articles frankly the site would be massively better off. — On this we agree. At issue here, however, is whether this particular firm meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Well, Wall Street Journal does in particular, this, CNBC interviews, and related Fortune and  Forbes articles, good indicators it's fine, even if nothing to rave about.♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing fails WP:NCORP, which is the standard here, and it is intentionally higher than the GNG (or rather, it explains what the GNG means for corporation, but in practice that is a higher standard.) All we see is routine coverage of a routine company. It doesn't matter the number of sources if they all don't pass the NCORP standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Ultimately, the page shouldn't have to already be perfect, right? If it exists, why can't it just be improved upon so that it doesn't read as unbiased and highlights all sides of the company, good and bad? I stumbled upon this discussion as I was about to edit the page and seek out material that may be controversial to create more depth to the article. By deleting the page there's no opportunity to show all sides of the company. The page was created in June and the only hand on it was the creator until this month. Leave the page and give others a chance... IvyMalamute7 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on that argument, then NOTHING would ever get deleted. The article must meet some level of WP notability standard the very second the submit button is hit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - topic is (marginally) notable, and tone is perfectly fine. In the whole of wikipedia articles like this don't add a huge amount but they don't take away anything either, and better to have reasonably referenced articles about companies than just spam. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep article feels reasonably neutral, and is backed by significant sources, about a wealthy business -- that is having a significant investment impact as a Venture capital space which meets the lasting interest requirements for notability. Moreover the sources are substantial so it meets GNG. Sadads (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2018 (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.