Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Gate 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 the weight of the arguments based on the applicable guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Golden Gate Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete A promotional article on a run-of-the-mill VC firm. References either rely on interviews/quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND) or mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or are from publications with no editorial control (e.g. Pando). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a substitute for a corporate web page nor is it a Yellow Pages. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Cursory search on Google disputes the original editor's presumption that Golden Gate Ventures is not a notable VC firm, on mistaken presumption that the firm's notability is solely derived from incorrect or unreliable sources, e.g. interviews/quotations, mentions-in-passing, or are from publications with no editorial control (e.g. Pando).


 * To begin: "Notability requires that an organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" WP:ORGCRITE. Consider the following:


 * Golden Gate Ventures is not a US-based firm, but one of only a few dedicated Series A firms based in Singapore and investing across Southeast Asia (the regional focus is an important distinction, given :that the remit of most funds in Southeast Asia is locally-focused);
 * it is one of the oldest institutionally-backed VC firms operating within Southeast Asia;
 * possesses a substantive portfolio (40+ companies), and
 * maintains an AUM greater than US$150M (as of June 2018).


 * Due to the above, Golden Gate Ventures is notable in that it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. To name a few:


 * Bloomberg - Golden Gate Ventures raising US$100M VC Fund // Golden Gate Ventures, one of Singapore's leading venture capital firms, is reportedly raising $100 million in a third fund to continue investing in Southeast Asia. // Golden Gate Ventures Raises Bet on Southeast Asia With New Fund
 * CNBC - Avoid these mistakes that doom many start-ups //
 * Wall Street Journal - Golden Gate Ventures Raises $50M Fund for Southeast Asian Startups //
 * Forbes - Golden Gate Ventures หอบเงินร่วมทัพ 4 Startups ไทย
 * Straits Times - Singapore's Golden Gate raising US$100m venture capital fund: Source
 * The Business Times - Singapore's Golden Gate raising US$100m venture capital fund: source // Time to get into Southeast Asia's Startup Scene? // How is Southeast Asia's Startup Ecosystem Shaping Up?
 * Singapore Business Review - Golden Gate Ventures raises US$100m fund
 * The Edge - Singapore's Golden Gate is said raising US$100 mil VC fund // Golden Gate Ventures raises bet on Southeast Asia with new fund
 * DealStreetAsia - Singapore’s Golden Gate Ventures said to be raising $100m VC fund // Golden Gate Ventures to raise $100m third fund, confirms SEC filing // Golden Gate to raise third fund within 2-3 years, a few B2C, fintech exits on the cards: Jeffrey Paine
 * TechCrunch - Golden Gate Ventures closes new $60 million fund for Southeast Asia // Golden Gate Ventures’ Vinnie Lauria On Being A Startup Investor In Southeast Asia // Golden Gate Ventures Unwraps $50M Fund For Southeast Asia
 * The Peak - How Vinnie Lauria changed Singapore’s startup scene by celebrating failure and sharing


 * Each of the above possess the five key components that constitute 'primary criteria':
 * significant coverage
 * multiple
 * independent,
 * reliable, and
 * secondary sources


 * Given the above, I would argue that Golden Gate Ventures passes the benchmark Notability test WP:ORGSIG).


 * Furthermore, the editor objects to the article on the basis that 'Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion', however, the article clearly does not engage in advertising of any sort, e.g. advocacy, opinions, self-promotion, et. al. Hence, I also believe that the articles passes the Advertising test WP:NOTADVERTISING) — Ckevinliu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC).
 * The account shares a Twitter handle with Kevin C. Liu, who identifies as an employee of Golden Gate Ventures on multiple social media websites. This user is also the article creator. I've added WP:COI notices to Golden Gate Ventures, Talk:Golden Gate Ventures, and User talk:Ckevinliu. Please disclose your affiliation with your employer whenever you discuss Golden Gate Ventures on Wikipedia. Newslinger (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Response Noted on COI. I am 100% unaffiliated with GGV. I only interacted with them 5 years ago, when I was living briefly in Singapore. I've been living and working in SF for the last five years, no longer interact with GGV in any capacity today, nor have I done so in over five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckevinliu (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Response Thank you for a comprehensive response with links to support your arguments. If only more did this. I have looked at the references you provided and I will respond by using the same numbering system as you. I believe you should read WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND as most of these references fail the criteria there. I also believe you are misinterpreting one of the 'primary criteria' - "independent". This is interpreted to mean that the reference is "intellectually independent" and not that the publisher/journalist has no corporate/personal affiliation with the company. Finally, the notability criteria disregards company-initiated coverage (press releases, announcements, interviews) repeated in publications unless the publication adds intellectually independent analysis or opinion.
 * 3 Bloomberg references First one is based on a company announcement attributed to an anonymous source with the usual company description (straight from the company's marketing department/web page). Fails WP:ORGIND. The next is an interview with a company officer (posted on Bloomberg's Facebook page) and also fails WP:ORGIND. The final reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from a company officer, fails WP:ORGIND
 * CNBC Reference is based on a report published in by the company in partnership with a business school and relies on the contents of the report and quotations from a company officer. PRIMARY source, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * WSJ Reference is based on a company announcement as is many of the other references covering this story. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * Forbes Based on an interview with a company officer with no intellectually independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Straits Times Exact same article as the first Bloomberg reference (except without a journalist attribution), fails for the same reason.
 * Business Times First reference attributes the source to Bloomberg (first reference), therefore fails for the same reason. Second and Third are links to CNBC video footage of an interview with a company officer with no intellectually independent opinion or analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Singapore Business Review Reference attributed the source to Bloomberg (first reference) therefore fails for the same reason.
 * The Edge The first reference attributes the source to Bloomberg (first reference) therefore fails for the same reason. Second reference also attributed the source to Bloomberg and is ultimately based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * DealStreetAsia All three references are based on company announcements, failing WP:ORGIND
 * TechCrunch First and Third references are based on company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. Next reference is based on an interview with a company officer (says so in the title too), fails WP:ORGIND.
 * THe Peak Based on an interview with a company officer, fails WP:ORGIND
 * Not one of the references are intellectually independent and nearly all are based on company announcements or interviews. All fail WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 10:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 09:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the coverage in major news sources around the world such as The Telegraph and WSJ, it should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Coverage, in general, is not part of the criteria for establishing notabilty. Please read WP:NCORP. You've provided a link to this Telegraph reference but it fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it relies extensively on a quotation and has no original analysis/opinion.  HighKing++ 10:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure of what WP:NCORP says, and I'm also equally sure that you are using an interpretation of WP:NCORP that is not how it is intended to be used, especially when the quote is only one single paragraph out of many. Hzh (talk)
 * would be great if you could point to any part of NCORP that you believe is being misinterpreted. You say you're sure of what NCORP says but you haven't framed your response as an explanation as to why "coverage in major news sources" is a valid reason towards notability nor a rebuttal of why the reference you linked to passes CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  HighKing</b>++ 10:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that you have wrongly described the article as relying "extensively on a quotation", and that the article give someone else's opinion, citing World Bank, and what whatever you might think, it does contain a brief analysis of why the company is significant to Singapore, perhaps it is you who should explain how it fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets take a look. First off, I did not intend for my statement to be interpreted as meaning that the entire article relies extensively on a quotation - only the part relative to Golden Gate Ventures (GGV) relies extensively on a quotation (which is fairly obvious when you read the article). It is important to note that the article is not actually about GGV but is headlined with "Singapore 'the next Silicon Valley'". As part of the article demonstrating why this might be the case, it mentions the the area has recently been targeted by lots of tech startups and incubator funds. It then mentions that the latest is GGV and it is this part that relies extensively on a quotation from Vinnie Lauria. Since WP:ORGIND states that in order for a reference to meet the criteria for notability, it must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, it is clear that none of the article that talks about GGV meets this requirement and so therefore this reference fails WP:ORGIND. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH because it is classified as a brief of passing mention such as in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. The remaining part of the article quotes from a British expat but not in relation to GGV but rather in relation to the headline - why Singaport might be the next Silicon Valley. The quote from the World Bank clearly has nothing to do with GGV - the article states "Singapore is attractive as it ranks number one in the world for ease of doing business and number four for starting up a business, according to the World Bank.". On the face of it, it certainly appears that it is you who has improperly read and interpreted NCORP, failed to properly understand the contents of the reference you provided and has incorrectly attributed a World Bank statement to GGV? In any case, the topic requires *two* references that meet the criteria and it currently has zero. Even should you successfully point out errors in my interpretation above, another reference is also required. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources offered above are passing mentions, routine founding news and / or WP:SPIP. None of the sources meet WP:ORGIND, resulting in a self-promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per KECoffman and HKing's analysis. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.