Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East 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 delete. On a pure nose count, this would seem to be a "no consensus". However, AfD is not a vote, and the assertion that the references available were either non-independent or not in depth and therefore do not demonstrate notability were strongly backed by analysis in the discussion, and not refuted nor were better references provided. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

East Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable venture company with small capitalization and no notable clients. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Reads like advertisement. Many PR/newswire sources and not necessary external links. Assirian cat (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business,  and Companies. Assirian cat (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has steadily deteriorated with what looks like inside editing since I cleaned it up and moved it to mainspace years ago. I must've screwed it up when I moved it because the history credits me as being the creator, instead of just a major fixer.  I rolled back a lot of the changes and think it looks better now. I'll have to add it to my watch list to keep it from deteriorating again. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mild keep the page has a chance. It's similar to Jungle Ventures as it's not the only WP:Mill and it meets WP:GNG. However, most of the information is based on different venture announcements --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi.. Thanks for the comment. East Ventures is one of Indonesia's largest VC and the early VC in Indonesia so far. Some of portfolios are the largest in Southeast Asia, such as Tokopedia, Traveloka, Grab... 101.128.119.77 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * we also has changed it to be more neutral compared to previous one. 101.128.119.77 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep in the spirit of the above comment re: mild keep. The article is looking better now. It's first iteration was pretty rough. I can see why it may have been nominated but in my opinion is up to snuff, at the very least on principle of the subject itself. Gnomatique (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect that the page has been edited by the compamy itself from an IP. The above IP comments are strange. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I just removed some more unsourced info that was added by an WP:SPA that geolocates to Indonesia. please don't add unsourced info, and please read WP:COI.  Otherwise, you're going to get the article flagged for inside editing, even if it's kept. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Since this is a company, WP:NCORP applies. Like Jungle Ventures, none of the references that I have found meet NCORP - it's all announcements and mentions-in-passing and nothing that contains "Independent Content". I'm happy to revisit if sources turn up in a different language which might be eluding me due to my inadequate search skills but until then, for me this topic fails both NCORP and GNG.  HighKing++ 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you sure you are applying WP:NCORP correctly? A close reading of WP:NCORP says A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This entire article is sourced with multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. What am I missing? If you aren't sure about the one Indonesian source, here's our article about the publication if you want to determine its reliability: Kompas. Kompas is an Indonesian national newspaper from Jakarta which was founded on 28 June 1965. I just removed some other sources that were poor, but I'm playing whack-a-mole. Still, this isn't my article, even though my name is on it, but it's still easier to fix this article about an obviously notable Indonesian firm than to vote delete. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. There's also the WP:SERIESA essay too. "Independent of the subject" doesn't just mean that the publisher and the topic company have no corporate links, it also means "intellectually independent" so that we need to see in-depth content within the article that isn't just a regurgitation of a company announcement or interview, but contains independent opinion/fact checking/analysis from a source unaffiliated to the topic company. If you've concerns/questions over a specific source, link it here and I'll try to see if there's anything we can use to establish notability.  HighKing++ 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s no need to link anything. The sources are all in the article already for any closer to see. No one us going to delete a well sourced article because of misapplied reasons and wiki-lawyering alphabet soup. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You ask me if NCORP is being applied correctly and when I explain and point to some relevant sections, you call it "wiki-lawyering alphabet soup". Hmmm, Ok. This company puts out a ton of PR in annoucements and interviews - check their website if you like - and this same PR is simply being regurgitated without the journalist adding any of their own independent opinion or analysis. The article has 16 sources, many used to support facts within the article which is good but for the purposes of establishing notability, it isn't the quantity that matters but the quality. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. References cannot rely solely on information provided by the company, including quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews. Here's a break-down of what is in the article:
 * Tech In Asia reference relies entirely on an interview with Cuaca and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * This from TechCrunch merely regurgitates a company announcement, the same one being parroted by other publishers on Sept 2017. Fails ORGIND
 * This from FINSMES and this in the Jakarta Post are also based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
 * This next from TechCrunch is a mere mention-in-passing, the topic company is mentioned by name in a sentence with no other details, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This in Reuters as well as this in Digital News Asia are entirely based on this company announcement, fails ORGIND
 * This from Bloomberg is a mere mention-in-passing in one sentence, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from The Business Times reports on "EV Growth" which is a different company as this is a venture between three companies, the Sinar Mas group, the topic company and Yahoo Japan. It includes a quote from the CEO of East Ventures but contains no in-depth information on the topic company and fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * This announcement of raising funds by Traveloka mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This funding announcement by Mercari mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This third from TechCrunch about EVHive mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from Kompas.com about Ruangguru.com mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from e27.co about Shopback raising funds mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from TechInAsia is identified as a "work in progress" and is a list of the most active investors in Southeast Asia. It is behind a paywall which I cannot access but there was an older list which was available. The list provides a summary of the company and statistics such as a list of "Recent Investees". There's no analysis or commentary and it relies entirely on data/information reported by the company or their investments. It the new list is the same, it fails ORGIND.
 * This next from Business Times is the most likely candidate as a source that meets NCORP. I do not have access to the report from Prequin but the topic company made an announcement about their inclusion and later that year invited Prequin to speak at their 10 year anniversary event where the aspects of the report are explained. We also have this article from Institutional Investor which discusses the report. Without seeing the report I would say it is likely to meet the criteria for establishing notability depending on whether there is any opinion/analysis expressed in the report - if it is simply ranking companies based on the data reported by those companies without analysis/opinion, then I would say it doesn't.
 * Feel free to comment but overall, nearly all of the references are regurgitated PR and announcements or mentions-in-passing as I first said, failing ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. We do not have sufficient verifiable in-depth "Independent Content" to pass NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 12:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You went to a lot of trouble to attack reliable sources. Maybe try to have them banned at the reliable sources noticeboard instead, and save yourself the huge time sink you find yourself in trying to justify your view that no company announcements should ever be covered in the media. You seem to be saying that if something is announced, that somehow negates the related reporting. I'm not sure you understand why there's a PR industry. Do you think only reports that come from journalists somehow getting an anonymous tip are worthy of reporting? Few articles would survive your deletion efforts if more closers agreed with you. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did I say they weren't reliable sources? Where did I "attack" their reliability?  HighKing++ 12:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing's convincing source analysis. @ We have a higher standard for sourcing for corporations in our written policies at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for a reason. Ignoring it with dismissive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT statements and personal attacks towards HighKing isn't strengthening your position.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2022 (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.