Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Wall 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Wall Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A $212 million venture capital fund is relative insignificant these days, and it is not surprising that there isnot enough material to show notability .Almost all the references are the expected mere announcements, with some of them ore extensive ones being PR. Even otherwise good newspapers publish PR-basedarticles in this field, and they have to be discounted.  DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC) �  DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Nom. Most of the sources are clearly rewrites of PR material. The worst are Forbes and Bizjournals who have not even bothered to paraphrase the PR bumpf. venturebeat and La business journal are not much better. The rest is routine announcements. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to consider moving this to Draft instead of deleting. I would have no objection to doing this.  DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was originally a draft article that was moved to mainspace by an inexperienced editor who has participated in 2 Afd in 2015 and 1 in 2016 on an article that they created which was deleted as a redirect and doesn't seem to have much experience in other discussions concerning notability. This move was made at the request of the article creator who was paid to write this article. I would say if the article creator has more sources then he can post them here. If in the 7 days that the discussion remains open he has not found sufficient sources to convince any delete !voters to change their minds then I doubt very much that its incubation would have made any difference. For me this looks like trying to game the system to avoid a deletion which I understand is not very good for the image of the client who paid for this article to be written. WP:DRAFTIFY is normally for 2 cases; after deletion in an undelete request and during new pages review. This page was reviewed back in february so that boat has now sailed. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Good anti use-case for the new WP:NCORP standard. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have WP:COI as declared on the article. I am preparing an update, which will have many new sources, including a second fund (VCs raise multiple funds), more articles about the company, and about 20 investments they've made, each covered by reliable sources. I suggest editors give me 24 hours to post the proposed updates to see if this sways them (since I can't edit directly, I have to use a sandbox to do my work) In the interim, I will note the following:
 * The formation of a large new VC fund to exclusively invest in real estate technology is not a routine announcement, even if the sources discussing the new company prominently mention the size of the fund. The main reason this new VC fund was covered by the mutiple reliable sources at launch is because it reportedly is the first or among the first to be focused exclusively on funding real-estate tech (companies in this category include, for example, WeWork and Airbnb), and was funded by some of the most important real estate companies in the world. This made it stand out from the very large crowd of general-interest VCs. Also, it was of interest to reliable sources because one of the principals founded a company that went public for $6.7 billion. So multiple reliable independent sources deemed it to be worthy of significant coverage, such as the Los Angeles Times, Forbes, TechCrunch and The Real Deal.
 * Regarding the size of the fund. VC firms raise multiple funds over time - as the funds become fully invested, they continue to be managed, and the VC firms raise new funds to make other investments; $240 million ($212m big raise plus $38m prior) is a very healthy first fund, if we are making subjective judgments here. By way of comparison, the first fund raised by the one of the most well-known VCs, Andreessen Horowitz was $300 million, as stated on the Wikipedia article about them, sourced here.
 * Not in the article yet is that it has been reported that the company filed an SEC report declaring they had already raised $60 million toward a second $200 million fund. The company didn't verify this, but the press recently picked it up from an SEC filing. This coverage is significant especially because there was no press release, no comment by the company, no announcement of any sort - just reporting by multiple sources that interpreted the SEC filing to be worthy of coverage.
 * This company had not issued any press releases when that article was created and sourced, and since then, has only issued one, related to the lead financing of a company not covered in this article. In short, suggestions above to the contrary, all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge), since there was no press release to rewrite or spin. Articles, even from reliable sources, that just rewrite press releases or make trivial mentions, don't help to establish notability under WP:NCORP. But that's not the case here. The interviews and analysis from source to source are unique. I suppose some of the reporters might have copied from each other, but when they do, they almost always cite and link to the other publication. Some sources, like Forbes, are bullish on the opportunity for the fund, but that's the analysis of their staff real estate reporter based on her knowledge, not a lazy PR rewrite.
 * Among the sources establishing notability: an extended feature in the tier-one reliable source, the Los Angeles Times, with extensive reporting ; this Forbes Magazine staff article from their real estate tech reporter that analyzes the company, and its prospects in the industry; this feature from TechCrunch ; an extensive second story in Tech Crunch when the firm launched an accelerator ; and multiple other sources cited in the article discussing the formation of the company and its significance in the VC and real-estate industry. As per WP: NCORP, independent sources covering the same event each count as a separate source.
 * I will suggest other new sources and language in a proposed update that show the company has been steadily in the news (and not as a result of press releases from the company, since there was only one), enabling the article to continue to be written and built out so it's much more than a stub, as per WP:NCORP. BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * That's a lot of techcrunch sources...you might want to have a look at this discussion. [] Dom from Paris (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Fifth Wall Ventures had issued no press releases at the time this article was written, so any reporting done by Techcrunch, the LA Times, Forbes, L.A. Business Journal, The Real Deal or any of the other cited sources is not based on re-hashed PR. These are multiple independent reliable sources that wrote significant original articles because they viewed the story as newsworthy. And as I'll show with the update shortly, the company has stayed in the news consistently since the article was published.BC1278 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * I find this almost impossible to believe as most of the articles are dated 2 May 2017. Did all the sources all of a sudden have an epiphany and write on the same day including the same information about this company? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And almost all of them use the same photo to illustrate the story and they all contain the same facts more or less..can this be a series of amazing coincidences or did someone feed them the news story with the basic facts and a photo to use all on the same day? Dom from Paris (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be more precise about what I was saying, of the 7 sources that talk about them raising 212M$ 6 are dated 02/05/2017 and 1 28/04/2017 (I don't have access to this article for GDRP reasons), the 2 sources that talk about the accelerator programme are both dated 12/07/2017 (1 is behind a pay wall though). Of the other 2 sources about Jared Kushner one (The real deal) is reporting the other (WSJ) and mentions 5th Wall in passing. The real deal article from 28/05/2018 is routine coverage of the extra 200M$ padded out with a rewrite of their 2017 article. So for me we have 9 sources that seem to be written from information fed to them (not sure about the LA Times though) 2 passing mentions and 1 source from 2016 that is behind a pay wall (WSJ) and 1 routine coverage from last month. I have serious doubts that this is enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They spoke to the press, of course. You can read the quotations in the stories. The timing of most of this was dictated by public SEC disclosures when a new fund is raised, after which the company pitched some interviews and the company responded to some interview requests. They may have also done several interviews on a black out in the days before the SEC disclosed the new fund. I don't know what happened here-- but getting an interview on black out until a set date was common when I reported. You can search BusinessWire or PRNewswire for press releases and you won't find one for that time period. I did find a blog post, though, but it was not mass distributed. I didn't say the company didn't interact with the press. And I'm sure the co-founders described their mission and strategy in similar terms when doing different interviews, so of course, the press was influenced by that. The big problem with reliable sources and press releases is if an otherwise reliable source does nothing but reprint or paraphrase the press release or some garbage story the company writes for them. If a staff reporter at the LA Times or Forbes got caught doing that, they'd get fired (unfortunately, this is not the case for bloggers with the Forbes Contributor network, which is non-staff). But I don't think Wikipedia policy says that just by a corporate CEO or founder giving or arranging an interview, an article about a company is tainted. The non-participation of article subjects is policy on Wikipedia and malpractice in journalism, BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Comment: I've done a major update to the article, in a sandbox, here: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. The changes are underlined. I have also placed them on the Talk page as proposed updates, as I cannot do a direct edit because of my COI. There are now 24 sources, instead of 12, and the stories appear pretty much every month since this article appeared. I should note that my new source list (just since this article was published in January 2018) is at about 105 sources, but for multiple press covering the same topic, I just picked one source, or at most, two.
 * Among the new RS (not in the article now - those are discussed above) that offer significant coverage of Fifth Wall is a feature in the L.A. Business Journal, a feature in The Real Deal after they discovered an SEC filing showing the firm had already raised $60 million more for a $200 million fund (the company declined to comment, as I believe it must during a fundraise under SEC rules). There's also Fast Company magazine story interviewing the co-founder of Fifth Wall, along with other top VCS, about the most important tech trends of 2018.
 * Most of the rest of the stories concern Fifth Wall leading investments in companies - I tried to choose the source among the several available for each investment that described Fifth Wall at some length and included interviews with them about what their thinking was on the investment. I should note for purposes of clarity from my previous comment about Fifth Wall itself, that companies receiving investments may have issued press releases, though I've read through all the stories and tried to exclude any that looked like press release rewrites without original reporting. For the non-lead investments, there are also stories with very brief mentions of Fifth Wall, which I included in the update just to have a comprehensive overview of their continued business activities, not because every source has substantial coverage.BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * So we have gone from there was no press release, no comment by the company, no announcement of any sort and all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge)


 * to they spoke to the press, of course and after which the company pitched some interviews and the company responded to some interview requests. I understand that you have to defend your client and the article but we are treading a fine line here, if you are not sure that what you are saying is true you should refrain from saying it just to defend your work. −Dom from Paris (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - in my view it is OK for a paid editor to directly edit an article while it is up for AfD, as this puts it in a more or less drafty state. Would anyone object to BC1278 directly updating the page while it is here?  I will also note that DGG offered to withdraw the AfD and send this to draft, which I think would be a good move as well and probably better. Would everyone commenting here please state their view on these two things? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging paticipants: User:Scope creep, user:DGG, User:Domdeparis, User:BC1278 Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as I said earlier they can post the sources here (without a wall of text as per WP:PAIDTALK). It is not what is written in the article that is a problem but its sourcing to show notability as per WP:NCORP. The nomination says that there is not enough material to show notability and nothing about what is written. If after looking at the sources they are enough to sway the delete !voters then the modifications can be made as per WP:Edit Requests. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If it is improper for me to request some of the article creation fee for "unbiased support" then when Wikipedia uses the word "should not", supported by broad community consensus, this is a polite way of stating "don't". This is in reference to content in the lead of WP:COI: "Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.". The question or suggestion of an exemption to allow COI editing at AFD causes great consternation. As a volunteer I do not get paid to not go to work so I can study all the ways a paid editor, whose job oftentimes is to sit around and create articles that can include looking at all the various ways to nicely circumvent or otherwise "bend the rules" to get an articles "published" on Wikipedia, and to "fight" to keep the article on Wikipedia. I am amazed and will take a deep breath and repeat "assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith". Whew! That might have worked. This whole "not getting into long drawn out interactions with those paid to do so is turning into just that. The place to discuss article changes would still, I think, belong on the article talk page following the acceptable practices and not at AFD. If edits are approved there then this can be mentioned here, so it can be checked, is how it generally works. Involved editors here should take caution in approving or making any edits on behalf of a paid editor. If this cannot take place in the timeline (with any extensions), then the process, in case of a delete consensus, would be an editor request for draftifying. There is then another process to see if the paid editor can then "get it right". I am trying to be fair just as other editors should that there is a strict set of "rules" concerning COI editing for a reason. This prevents corporate money from swaying the editorial process of Wikipedia. I read Cabify that is full of advertising type editing, including "according to the company", and was shocked that something of importance as a controversy (balance) was buried within the article. It would take a lot of comments to convince me that paid editing was not involved when I saw "The murder of a young female costumer (sic) in Puebla, Mexico, by one of Cabify's drivers raises important questions about the credibility of any filtration process carried out by the company." tucked within in the description of the "Drivers" section. The end result is a well referenced puff advertising article for Cabify. I also read Identified (company) and some others that like to use TechCrunch, Forbes, and CrunchBase as sources to create articles. If a subject is notable then that definition would mean sources other than those above, general press releases, and interviews, that seems to specifically report on these type businesses, would have taken note and reported. If not then we have a circular set of sources, that are in some way involved, and a new article based on these sources that will not be neutral thus preventing a balanced article. These are part of the "Five pillars" right? Paid editors, and the companies they "work for" should continually be on notice that Wikipedia does not operate on corporate funding, nor does the vast majority of editors, so to prevent "advertising type articles" (part of what Wikipedia is not) the "rules" need to be "strict". If we start bending the policies and guidelines for COI editing then we slide down the slope of "money runs everything". I do not think we need to give any more rope than allowed because money will find a way to get an article on Wikipedia no matter what so let's not make it any easier. Otr500 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: does anyone object to my putting a standard very short notice of the AfD discussion on the projects for WP: Finance, WP: Private Equity, and WP: Business? The AfD notice actually should have gone automatically to projects based on Talk page categories, but there seems to be a problem with this working. The projects for Company Articles and California articles should also have been notified automatically, based on the little I know about AfD alerts for projects added to Talk (I didn't add any of these myself.) The first two especially have worked extensively on what's proper for an article about a private equity firm.BC1278 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * There'sbeen enought explanation ofthe problems with sources: Looking at it a little more broadly: You say above  240 million  is a very healthy first fund,...  By way of comparison, the first fund raised by the one of the most well-known VCs, Andreessen Horowitz was $300 million,  Please see WP:EINSTEIN-- Andreessen Horowitz is notable because they grew to $7 Billion--and they stayed small, they wouldn't have been notable either.  "A very healthy first fund" is the equivalent of   "not yet notable"   .  DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: "In perspective" $300 million is not a lot at all. A large bank would be one with assets in excess of that amount and we don't have articles on all of them because they are not, just on that amount, inherently notable. The army spent $300 million to get 6000 new volunteers. The Mega-Millions and power-ball jackpots hit $300, $350, $393, to $690 million and Floyd Mayweather's $300 million year tops the subjects first offering. Search source: . Bill Gates might need to apply for food stamps as he is $4.2 billion poorer (Forbes) and the average wealth of a billionaire dropped $300 million. Some of them likely lost money in the Mayweather fight. The subject specific sourcing does give rise to advancement of advertising, company induced interviews, and the industry repeated carrying of the coverage, that will give the appearance of notability more than deserved. This can allow (if unchecked) corporate backed creation (certainly encourage) of otherwise non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) articles. I am not arguing that paid editorials are inherently bad but we either need to give up (give in) or stay vigilant because nobody here (sanely) can argue that corporate money is not allocated to "getting the name out there" and this is in part accomplished by getting listed high (or at the top) of search engines. Where does Wikipedia rank in that area? If I search for just about anything Wikipedia will be at or near the top. It would be close to impossible for the best in the world to convince me that Wikipedia is not a target for "getting included" as soon as possible. If not then corporate money would just wait for some editor to create the article and a ton of money could be saved. That would hamper the advertising write-off though so it is a vicious circle. Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Related project listings: In answer to the "question" about related project listings: If it is within the scope of "fair notice" I cannot see a problem as long as those given notice are listed here. Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The size of the first fund is just one factor, of course. But if this is your main concern, I wish we were having this discussion a couple weeks from now. If this had been moved to Draft, I would have kept it out about two weeks before proposing it be looked at again. The press already picked up on the SEC notice of the $60 million raised for the second $200 million fund. There could very well be more afoot, based on my personal judgment of how fast they are investing since launch, but SEC rules prohibit the company from making any comments about fundraising. Consider though that Fifth Wall has at least nine of the biggest real estate companies in the world as limited partners. Through Fifth Wall, they are funding a WeWork competitor, Industrious, which is very capital intensive. And with the new source I added on OpenDoor, you can see that in addition to the $35 million equity investment, they arranged for one of their limited partner investors to lend $100 million to the company, so their role is amplified compared to a typical VC because of their business model of working directly to match the needs of portfolio companies with their giant real estate investors. Forgetting all about Crystalball, the rapid-fire pace of investment is very telling. We could use the perspective of someone uninvolved who is a subject matter expert and ideally has worked on multiple VC article. I will post those AfD project notices. I suggest that prior to an AfD discussion closing, there should be a review of the proposed edits, now on Talk, to make it easier to consider the article with newly relevant content and sourcing. BC1278 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * So this a case of WP:TOOSOON? Another reason for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment No it’s not, and personally I think it is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, the coverage is absolutely routine, and asserts WP:ORGIND, as it is the same routine press coverage as other funds receive when paid crowd decide to put up an article on WP. Most of the venture capital funds are entirely generic in nature and use the same business models and software to identify investment vehicles. There is barely any difference between one fund and another. They are entirely generic. That is whole point of them. Once the business model is produced and found to be successful, it is duplicated everywhere. That’s is the reason why we have so many articles of the same type. And the same routine press coverage trumpets the news to enable people to find the fund. Same model and process every time. What happened to doing the work, to see if they are actually different, instead of basing it on the crude measure of how much they have? It is the crudest measure possible. It always puzzles me why need to have these types of articles. We were supposed to be sort of learned society, and certainly policy and rules are written in that manner and the makeup of the editor crowd reflects that to some extent, but 10 years of attrition by the WP:PAID crowd has worn us down. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Scope creep I just want to point out, that while many VC firms have a fairly generic structure (limited partners who find people with $ willing to make some fairly risky investments) this one is different. It is similar to a fund that was raised in the biomedical space, called Enlight (ref) where big pharma companies came together to form a fund to invest in startups developing tools to do biomedical research. They did that because typical VC had moved away from funding these kind of companies and the pharma companies wanted more tools to find drugs with.  This kind of so-called "precompetitive collaboration" has become more common in the biomedical space.   Anyway, this fund is kind of like that.  Big players in real estate got together to fund companies bringing IT to the real estate market.  It is interesting, to me anyway, as somebody who thinks about how innovation gets funded and commercialized. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it might swing it as notable. Its certainly outside the mainstream, and as outlier it confers a kind of notabilily. Different enough to make it sufficiently notable. I don't know. Depends how granular you want to go. It could be the first of its kind, and that helps but refs are routine business news. scope_creep (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might. But this must be decided by those without a direct financial conflict of interest. The role of a paid editor is to present material and let the community decide, not to bargain with the community, nor to advocate for their view of an article. If they find that limited role incompatible with their assignment, then that's an argument against our allowing paid editing.    DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that exclusive focus on the size of the fund is not a good idea and I addressed it because it was a primary reason cited for proposed deletion. I'd ask that you please see my updated version at User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall): you will see that the business model here is indeed unique, as is the sourcing of investments. a) the investors (limited partners) were limited to some of the largest real estate companies in the world; b) the investments are sourced based on the commercial real-estate needs of the limited partners - not to disrupt the entrenched industry leaders, but to help them, the exact opposite of the typical strategy of a VC firm. c), the limited partners agree to become the customers of the companies funded by the firm, which is exactly how it has played out as investments have proceeded (see the update); d) they claim to be the first real estate-tech VC firm, and there is a source for that, but I didn't include it because it sounds promotional to make a claim like that.  -BC1278 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * I have posted AfD notification on the Talk pages of the projects for WP: Finance, WP: Private Equity and WP: Business. -BC1278 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * Keep passes GNG with the Forbes and LA Times refs. I don't doubt these publishers received a hot tip and accompanying photo, but does that immediately put the refs in WP:SPS limbo? I think not. Pegnawl (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is a long Afd and with the walls of text one can get a bit lost but nobody is suggesting that these are self published sources. But that they are dependent coverage and especially any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism), and when say they got hot tip and accompanying photo this is not a fair representation as the information is identical and they all came out on the same day. I have just seen that these articles all rewrite a statement here that was released on the 1st of May 2017 by 5th Wall.     and  I think this is conclusive proof that despite what the article creator said there was a form of press release on the 1st of May and almost all of the 2nd of May articles are rewrites of this press release.  Dom from Paris (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is mighty long! Thanks for linking the dependent coverage section, I haphazardly grabbed SPS for its reference to press releases (though I now see that's buried in a footnote).


 * I don't like the use of the term 'identical' in this discussion - no one copied the PR verbatim. Obviously the articles are built on the same theme and with the same major points, but ... they are written about the same announcement. Both Forbes and LATimes sought out further information and provide unique quotes. To me this indicates that the PR was released, and tech/real estate staff at reliable publishers decided it was an interesting enough story to run with. Pegnawl (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The articles are not identical but the salient points are. This was not a Press release as such but an annoncement on a website, the photo was not on that page. this means, as far as I can see, that someone acting for the company contacted the different sources and pointed them to the annoncement and supplied a preferred photo. Most do not quote the annoncement (Forbes does) and just rewrote it adding in some extra info here and there. This is the clearest case of Churnalism I have ever seen. The article creator originally said all the articles cited in the article are based on original reporting from the secondary sources (such as interviews with the founders, review of SEC documents, analysis of the reporter based on their industry knowledge) but this seems to be questionable now. Seeing that there is very little time between the annoncement and the articles they almost certainly got the info before and even Forbes says that it was originally published on Tuesday...though the 1 May 2017, was a Monday and she was writing on a Tuesday...odd. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Pending - having read through one of the longer AfDs I've participated in I need to read it again and analyse the suggested changes for myself before I can make my decision. That said the primary grounds for this not being a Keep would be if the main sources were invalidated (or reduced to being a single source) as they were premised off the same tip/photo. I'm not inclined to think this is the case, but am open to comments to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The Forbes reference is a /site subdomain of Forbes, which is self generated website, it is webhosting domain, meaning it not RS. scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree searching the WP:RSN for 'Forbes churnalism,' this discussion [1], and the further examination on WP:PUS [2], seem to indicate that because it's written by Forbes Staff, it can indeed be used as RS. Pegnawl (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But what do you think about the message I posted above about it being dependent coverage? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded above, but I think that the journalists seeking out additional supplemental information and quotes makes it depart from that policy, if only just enough. Pegnawl (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Comment:'Please consider the many additional sources and info proposed on Talk of Fifth Wall, as updates to the article, as seen in context (underlined) on my sandbox: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. Updates should be considered as part of an AfD WP: AfD but I cannot implement these directly on the article because of COI. See, for example, this new L.A. Business Journal feature story about the firm. . I will enter a Request Edit since no one has reviewed the proposals yet.BC1278 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * Fast company is a quote so a primary source. Bloomberg is a passing mention, Techcrunch is notoriously unreliable as per my comment above and this is a passing mention anyway, Not sure about Commercial Observer but it is essentially about Enertiv and doesn't have in-depth coverage of the subject and looks like more churnalism, the Forbes bit is essentially about Limebike and not in-depth coverage of 5th wall and also ends with "Click here for details on how to send Biz information anonymously.", I can't access the Dallas news site as I am in Europe but it seems to be an article about Limebike again, the 2 Techcrunch articles are only passing mentions, the Real Deal is a passing mention, the WSJ is behind a pay wall but looks to be the article from which the Real Deal got their info so may be a passing mention but feel free to paste a quote if it isn't, the Chiago business is a passing mention. LA Business journal is behind a pay wall. I'm seeing a lot of passing mentions but it may be enough to sway other particpants. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4-week trial registration for LA Business Journal is free and requires no credit card. This is a feature story about FWV. In any case, Wikipedia is not limited to sources that are free on the internet or we wouldn't be able to use books, many leading peer-reviewed journals or much of the Wall Street Journal. WP: Offline. First Real Deal story is just about FWV, not a passing reference. Entirely original reporting based on SEC filing. FWV wouldn't even comment for the story, as SEC policy prohibits.BC1278 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * Sorry I should have made it clear that I am not rejecting them just saying why I can't access them and giving my opinion about those I can see. The real deal article was already on ther I was talking about the one you added. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the extra sources fast company, bloomberg, techcrunch, commercial observer, forbes, dallas news, techcrunch 2, techcrunch 3, the real deal, wsj, chicago business. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That list excludes two of the most significant new ones: L.A. Business Journal, Firm Sees Symbiosis as Strategy and Real Deal 2. That Real Deal story is not in the current article. It's about a new $200 million fund aimed at retail real-estate tech. The Fast Company story has many top VCs, and is not focused on FWV, but it's not primary. The text on FWV mixes prose and quotes. FYI, I chose just one representative story for each topic, like FWV matching together Opendoor and Lennar for a partnership and $100m debt investment. But there are 100+ RS since the article was published.BC1278 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Here is an except from a new article from L.A. Business Journal, since it's behind a paywall with a free trial. I removed paragraph breaks. ''It’s been 11 months since real estate tech investment firm Fifth Wall Ventures announced its inaugural $212 million fund, trumpeting partnerships with industry heavy weights such as CBRE Group Inc. and Macerich Co. The Venice-based outfit has more than doubled its employee count to 19 from nine since then, with several new hires and promotions coming this week for Fifth Wall. The firm’s newest partner is KC Cleary, who joined Fifth Wall from McKinsey & Co. Clearly will help manage the firm’s partnerships with its anchor limited partners, who all committed at least $15 million last May to help fund the Fifth Wall venture. The firm also promoted Roelof Opperman and Vik Chawla to firm principals. Fifth Wall co-founder and Managing Partner Brad Greiwe said the pair had been integral in putting deals together for the firm over the past year. The firm has done 20 deals since it came online last May, and Greiwe said he and co-founder Brendan Wallace, also a managing partner, feel their thesis about Fifth Wall as both an investment and relationship building platform has been validated. “We’ve proven that the model works,” Greiwe said. “Our anchor LPs are happy and an additional fund is definitely in the cards.” Greiwe did not disclose whether the firm was working on a second fund, or whether Fifth Wall would take on additional institutional investors when it did. “Whether we expand to other strategics is TBD,” he said. The firm is working for now on maximizing its current relationships, both with its LPs and with the companies it is investing in. Partner Natalie Bruss, who was hired full time in September after consulting for Fifth Wall for almost a year prior, is spearheading these efforts. Greiwe said the relationship component – putting emerging companies in the real estate tech space together with established industry heavyweights – was where the firm differentiated itself “When you put an early stage company together with a large incumbent, you can do some really powerful things,” Greiwe said. “LPs adoption of (an emerging company’s) tech ultimately can determine if an early stage company lives or dies.” The collaborative philosophy is almost antithetical to the typical tech world ethos of disruption, Greiwe added. “This is not disruption,” he said. “It’s enablement and helping establish symbiotic relationships.”'' -BC1278 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * Delete A $200 million fund isn't large or unusual enough to be notable based on that, and most of the refs are just of their funding. Based on my experience both on Wikipedia and in the tech industry, it would take something extraordinary for a fund to meet notability standards 2 years after being created, and I don't see that here.  No amount of coverage in the L.A. Business Journal or TechCrunch will meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete What makes Fifth Wall Ventures remarkable enough that it belongs in an encyclopedia? I can't find anything in this article that meets the encyclopedia criteria. This article belongs in a Who's Who of American Business, not here. That this article appears in Wikipedia gets to the question of what Wikipedia is for. Is it an encyclopedia or a freewheeling PR platform? Chisme (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They have two funds. Their initial fund was $240 million, including early fundraising; the newer one is $200 million. Please read the update at User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall. It's been available since June 7. Obviously this AfD discussion is distorted because the update proposals on Nextdoor Talk have not been implemented.BC1278 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * I think you mean 5th Wall and not Nextdoor and also you do not have to reply to each comment. Thos looks like WP:BLUDGEONING your POV. We get that as the paid creator you obviously think the subject is notable. Please let the volunteer editors discuss it. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The evidence discussed above leads me to agree that the sources are not intellectually independent and information has been provided to the sources by company sources. There does not appear to be any intellectually independent references. I'm happy to revisit this decision if references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are in passing or not intellectually independent. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 16 June 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.