Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GGV 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GGV Capital

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Sources are either press releases, passing mentions in reliable sources or coverage in a marketing newsletter not meeting WP:RS, especially when it is the main source of "significant coverage". I could find no news coverage that could be used to establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firms of this type can have quite a lot of private money under their management but still be too poorly covered in RS sources to support an article. As with US mutual funds, UK investment trusts and OEICS, etc, these things are not individually notable (except when hit by scandal). --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This passes the notability threshold as set forth in WP:CORP. The criteria there is the "company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources".  The article currently has listed several third party sources that provide articles about the firm.  I don't think a claim can be made that any of these constitute trivial coverage.  The commentary about whether the AltAssets news service meets the criteria for relaiability, per WP:RS, I think it pretty clearly is (1) reliable - the news is accurate, comprehensive on this sector and presented in a factual non-biased fashion, (2) third-party - there is no affiliation with the firms it covers or any claim that it covers this firm more because of some relationship and (3) published source - this is a widely available source that has been used and accepted in many other places in wikipedia.  If we establish this is a WP:RS then I think it is difficult to make the case that the article is not properly covered.


 * Additionally, this firm is a major investor in the venture capital space, among the larger firms with over $1 billion of capital under management and a portfolio of investments in notable companies. Unlike a mutual fund which invests passively in public companies, venture capital and prviate equity firms typically own and control the notable companies in their portfolio.  A mutual fund is simply a pool of capital, and compares more closely with the individual funds that this firm manages.  I do not propose coverage of individual funds.  This firm is an asset manager, more akin to a mutual fund company (The Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments, etc.  Additionally, the article is in a very clean / unpromotional form and should be kept for other users to contribute.


 * I also find the idea that these firms are only notable when hit by scandal to be an unfortunate commentary. I think the coverage of a limited number of individual, notable private equity and venture capital firms is beneficial to wikipedia and this article meets requirements for notability. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: What I meant is that investment vehicles tend to live quiet, blameless, non-notable, lives unless something (usually something bad) happens to them to get them coverage. Most of them will never be involved in a scandal. A very few of them will achieve notability in other ways. I agree that we should have coverage of the few companies that are notable, whatever they are notable for. I am unconvinced that this company is one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question But then what are your criteria for inclusion? I think if you took a smaller venture firm it would not be covered like GGV in reliable industry related publications like AltAssets and would have a very hard time establishing notability at all.  I have in my two years on Wikipedia been involved with the deltion of many of non-notable private equity related articles and have tried to adhere consistently to the guidelines for notability.  Over the last few months, I have tagged several non-notable articles and later suggested proposed deletion.  Additionally I have proactively created articles on firms that I believe are notable and valuable additions because of historical signifiicance or size and prominence.  This article was not one I had proactively included in my list of articles to be added but since it was added by another editor, I think the question is (1) does the subject meet notability requirements set forth in WP:CORP and does the article conform with other guidelines.  based on my assessment, I think the article does meet these criteria and should be kept.  I would be more than happy to discuss other less notable articles that are more apporopriate candidates for deletion. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment size is relevant. There are two figures given, & only one of them is real. They firm has $1 billion of assets under management. It has invested them in companies worth $35 billion. The relevant figure of course is the $1 billion. If I buy a share of Microsoft, I do not thereby become a billionaire. Now, if there is an assertion that this gives it a controlling influence on the companies, that, if documented, would bee meaningful, but a 3% interest is not usually controlling. DGG (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only $1 billion is relevant. The $33 or $35 billion number is somewhat less informative in that it refers to the value at exit so it includes both a return on investment and their respective % ownership of the companies. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Size is relevant how? And sourced where? What am I missing in WP:N that gives this article as it stands any notability other than a comment from a top admin? Yes, no, I really, truly, don't care, but please declare one way or the other. Flowanda | Talk 08:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Size is sourced in the references on the page. I agree - this discussion has drawn relatively limited discussion other than the nominating editor and a major contributor.  I think there is very little concensus to delete.  |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is always a little unsatisfactory when an AfD ends like that. Please let me put a some delsorts on it and give it another day or so. We might yet get somewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The references listed don't meet WP:RS, and I couldn't find any others that did.-- that's why I nominated it for deletion. This isn't just an argument between editors; either the article stands, or it doesn't. If there are other sources that can be found to establish the notability defined in Wikipedia policy/guidelines, then I'll be happy to help look for them, but so should the other editors and admins who've contributed to this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not given any reason why the references in the article do not meet WP:RS. There are already 8 references listed on the page, these are third party, unrelated, broadly circulated publications. The firm is notable and notability is established. But we have been over this territory already01:23, 26 March 2009 (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.