Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earlybird Venture Capital


 * 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 delete. Despite some sources provided, consensus is that those sources are insufficient to establish notability, mainly for the reasons pointed out at WP:SPIP.  So Why  10:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Earlybird Venture Capital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly promotional in content and lacking in references and value. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I also removed a lot of unnecessary marketing material from the article. -- HighKing ++ 15:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- venture funds are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. WP:PROMO also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was about to close this, but (full) all look like significant coverage from major sources to me... czar  01:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in particular with the references listed by as follows:
 * This WSJ article is clearly based on an "announcement" from the company and therefore fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company
 * This Techcrunch] article is also clearly based on an "announcement" from the company and therefore also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company.
 * This VentureBeat article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as again, it is clearly an interview with a new "employee" and relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company.
 * This thenextweb article fails for the exact same reasons as the first two above.
 * This techcrunch listing of all articles that mention the company fails because they're all company announcements. In general, I find that techcrunch article are lousy for meeting the criteria for establishing notability as they simply regurgitate company PR and announcements that invariably fail either WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. A quick scan and look at any of those articles confirms that, at least for me.
 * I'm happy to change my !vote if references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. -- HighKing ++ 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't even mention "corpdepth"—I'm talking general notability guideline. Those four articles (+ the listing of more) are all reliable, secondary sources with dedicated articles for the topic, more than sufficient for writing a detailed encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic without reaching into primary sources. If you want an acronym, WP:ORGCRITE is a virtual repeat of the general notability guideline. I don't know how you could argue that these citations lack "depth"—they are not passing mentions and each discusses the company's actions as the subject of the article. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , maybe you misunderstood but you are ignoring the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations which specifically disqualifies certain types of articles such as ones that rely on material produced by the company or stories that rely on quotations from company officers. Once you exclude those types of articles for consideration from the list you produced, how many articles are left? The articles you have listed can be used to "flesh out" an article but only *after* the topic has passed the criteria for notability (which is the existence of a minimum of two references that pass the criteria for establishing notability). -- HighKing ++ 12:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Trees for the forest? You're referring to a list of examples meant to exclude "trivial coverage": brief listings, barely repackaged PR, or anecdotes in a piece that has no depth. But these sources aren't trivial—they're reliable and substantial enough to write an article on the company's basic activities if I were so inclined (this is the essence of the GNG). czar  16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The full opening description of WP:ORGIND states A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.. Trivial doesn't mean a "short" article, it refers to the amount of "consideration" the people who wrote the article have "independently" given to the subject. An article that simply regurgitates company-produced material without providing any analysis or "independent" thinking is indeed trivial (and intellectual drivel) and fails the criteria for notability. Using your own terminology, those article are indeed "barely repackaged PR". -- HighKing ++ 13:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm sticking with WSJ, TechCrunch/VB, and The Next Web being as reliable as it gets in this department. I have no issues with their independence from the company or their editorial process in choosing what you consider "regurgitation". czar  16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources found by clearly demonstrate that Earlybird Venture Capital has received the "significant coverage in reliable sources" as required by Notability. There is sufficient non-interview coverage of the subject in the articles. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources are actually simply rehashings of the company's own financial gains and 2 others are actually personally supplied interviews by an employee, that wouldn't be significant coverage if the company motivated it, regardless of publisher since GNG strongly says independent is key. SwisterTwister   talk  20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I TNT'd the bad parts. As I offered above, the sourcing is substantial & reliable and the promotional parts have been abated. The rest should still be rewritten without jargon. The AfD spread is so strange—topics with multiple headlines in reliable sources sent to the bin while topics with zero sourcing are kept with nods to the SNG... Nothing should matter more than the sourcing. czar  02:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unchanged (still "Delete") -- with the promo parts removed, what's left is an insignificant subject and a directory-like entry. Some of the article is actually trivial news with promotional undertones, as in:
 * "Earlybird hired LinkedIn co-founder Konstantin Guericke as a venture partner in 2012 to facilitate the global expansion of Earlybird’s portfolio companies!" (emphasis mine)
 * There's nothing to talk about -- it's not surprising, as I don't find the sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH: there's no transformational analysis, just routine corporate news. Nothing stands out about this subject; hence the directory listing vibe.
 * Here's the relevant wording from CORPDEPTH:
 * "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."
 * We have a "very brief, incomplete stub" -- thus I still advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be easy to expand further from the sources—I only cleaned up what was once there. It's a VC firm. It's going to be dry. Not sure why "corpdepth" is coming up again, as the GNG trumps that. "corpdepth" is mainly to ensure that routine blurbs about a company don't become a case for notability. But we're talking dedicated articles from national sources. AfDs pass easily every day with far worse sourcing than the articles I linked. czar  05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG is not policy and has the exact same standing as CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. One does not "trump" the other. Also, CORPDEPTH makes it clear that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" does not meet the criteria for notability. Finally, a reliable source can still be regarded as completely reliable by dutifully and accurately attributing every "fact" to company sources or company-produced material (which is what is happening here). A source that is "independent" from the topic company does not simply mean that the source is not owned by or affiliated in some way to the company - it means that what is being written is "intellectually independent". An article that doesn't deviate from company material or provide any independent opinions or views fails notability criteria. Similarly an article that relies on quotations/interviews with company officers fails notability criteria. Whereas, an article that uses material but goes on to express an independent opinion or commentary on what has been quoted would pass. -- HighKing ++ 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it actually doesn't. Look, it isn't productive to quote guidelines at someone who has already demonstrated an understanding and reasoned disagreement with your position, particularly on points of significant coverage. But in the interest of consensus, the more convincing argument would be that TechCrunch/VB should be thrown out as a source, which would leave too few sources with which to write an article. I don't necessarily agree with that position, especially relative to the rest of sourcing used on WP, but am sympathetic and could be swayed. I agree that these TC/VB pieces are mediocre cases of journalism, but I find your above, out-of-hand dismissal of all sources listed (including the WSJ's?) to be unreasonable. By comparison, almost all reliable video game journalism is dressed-up PR—even more so than these—but we keep articles all the time for having even less coverage than this AfD has, because notability only asks whether the source is reliable (sound editorial judgment, pedigree for accuracy) and not about its quality. So on principle, if TC/VB is going to be passable in AfDs ever, then it needs to be now, but if TC/VB is going to be a line in the sand for unacceptable quality and exclusion at AfD, then there needs to be a greater consensus so it can apply not only to this discussion. czar  17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Village pump discussion argues that NSPORT is too inclusive of sources that would otherwise be excluded by GNG. That's pretty much the opposite of what I've said which is that all guidelines have equal footing when it comes to *excluding* sources. Just like the Village Pump discussion, if a reference is excluded because of one guideline, it can't then be argued to include it under another. The WSJ article is 1) a Blog, which is normally excluded since it is user-generated and not under any editorial control and 2) relies on quotations from the company or a company officer for information/facts. I'm not trying to change your mind - I'm happy if you have all the information and then decide how you want to !vote. If you can point me to some information or data in the WSJ article that isn't attributable to company-produced material, then perhaps the WSJ article is "intellectually independent" with independent substance and I'll have a rethink. -- HighKing ++ 15:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Try the first bullet of that VP discussion: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." On your other point, business journalism is fundamentally based on reports from companies & their employees, unless every article you consider worthy at AfD has been the subject of investigative assignment. The WSJ report is based on an interview with a partner of the firm, showing that the WSJ deems the company worthy of extended coverage. I don't see why the WSJ needs to run a separate market analysis next to the article to prove that the report was worthy of publishing—they already exercised their editorial discretion by choosing what to publish. czar  17:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , again with a strawman argument. Nowhere have I stated that CORPDEPTH or ORGIND "supercedes" GNG (or vice versa for that matter). They're complimentary and CORPDEPTH et al simply expands on GNG and provides additional explanation specific to interpreting sources to establish the notability of corporations. I acknowledge your point that a lot of business journalism is based on reports from companies and their employees but I disagree that those sources are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability (and only that purpose - once notability has been established, those sources can be used to establish facts). There are many examples of articles that don't rely almost exclusively on company sources and information and these are acceptable. An article cannot be "independent of the subject" if all it does is repeat what a company or company officer/employee says without providing any analysis or comment on the quotes, which is the case for the sources provided for this topic. GNG also essentially states the same thing: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. and CORPDEPTH and ORGIND simply provides more in-depth explanations (for a reason). -- HighKing ++ 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? And re: WSJ's source independence, I can't be any more clear or cogent on my disagreement, so I suggest either taking the impasse to a wider forum or dropping it.  czar  19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this excellent analysis of WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and the sources by Czar. That The Wall Street Journal chose to cover this firm strongly establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as it was quoted above that GNG is acceptable in sealing an article's acceptance yet this is not the only factor, there's actually also satisfying WP:What Wikipedia is not, our main policy when it comes to showing what we can and cannot accept and the current article and sources as is given now, are still too promotional and I'll clarify: The WSJ is in fact not one of their main stories, but instead part of their PR-founded business section, therefore indiscriminate coverage and WP:Indiscriminate covers this quite well, next is also The company only announced its Berlin office in March, but Ciaran O’Leary, who despite his name is actually German, said the company would be moving here before the year’s end....operates from offices in Hamburg and Munich along with the visible incorporation of company quotes, which although common or useful to the article, is still primary. Next, we have TechCrunch which is literally a business listing, therefore WP:Webhost, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo apply given it's only what the company financials are NextWeb is essentially as repubished rehash of the TechCrunch which is a financial listing, which I'll note WP:ORGIND says "anything directly or indirectly by the company, wherever published" and the ; in fact, WP:ORGIND covers this well too with "anything directly or indirectly by the company". Next, the quote ([He] tells me that he and other colleagues..... As for VentureBeat, the company itself is not the main focus but instead that one of their business partners is joining the company and talking about them, therefore it's not independent. Next, this only shows the full list of TechCrunch where they have based all their own material from the company's own publishings and words, therefore still not independnet, no matter where and how it was published if the company is still basically the one author. In this, we have not only clear policies but actual company notability guidelines about this, therefore considering itself echoes the importance of independent coverage, there's no exceptions made for businesses. Also, I see there's a quote above saying that if we are hard on accepting such sources as TechCrunch and VentureBeat, then we should apply that basis on all other AfDs, several in the past weeks actually. Now, as a note on the general interests of these sources, I well understand these are important areas for companies to gain attention and that's of course how they support themselves, but that's actually why Wikipedia is not a company advertiser or advisor. SwisterTwister   talk  20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , on what basis is WSJ's Tech Europe "not one of their main stories ... part of their PR-founded business section"? czar  22:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the WSJ Europe blog actually says in a specified section down the page, that it services the businesses and the people who support those businesses, therefore it cannot be guaranteed as actually independent, whatever the publisher may be, since it's the contents that count and it's something we've always acknowledged in AfDs or else simply accepting any bare article would be WP:Must be notable. SwisterTwister   talk  18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't see where it says that anywhere on the main or individual pages—do you have a quote? czar  20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per ST's analysis above. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:28, 15 July 2017 (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.