Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizons 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 redirect to Li Ka-shing. Rough consensus is that the sources found by Cunard don't establish notability because they are routine business reporting, but that a redirect is a sensible alternative to deletion.  Sandstein  12:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Horizons Ventures

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or an interview.  HighKing++ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hong Kong.  HighKing++ 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you expand on why the FT wouldn't count towards establishing notability? In addition, found in depth coverage from WSJ. Not ready to vote yet, but leaning keep. Pegnawl (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, the FT article from June 2020 focuses a lot on Li Ka-shing (great name too) and "his" investments although the topic company is run by his long-term companion Ms. Chau. The article lists various companies in which the topic company invested in - but the article does not provide information on its sources. It credits "one finance industry professional who has dealt with Horizons" and to "data compiled by Dealogic" saying that "Many of the deals are private and the size of many investments have not been disclosed. Horizons does not report its returns". Ms Chau refused an interview request. Another source is described as "One investor who knows Horizons". Yet more information is credited to "People who know Ms Chau". I'm not seeing enough reliable information that meet CORPDEPTH. The WSJ source is older from 2015 and is also focused on the people, Li Ka-shing and Ms. Chau who refused to be interviewed, as well as the topic company. The information provided about the topic company is little more that a recitation of various companies into which the topic company invested and some of their well-publicised exits. The quotes/information are provided by people affiliated with the company or companies they've invested in or alongside. Again, I just don't see any CORPDEPTH material on the topic company, just a lot of surface-level recitation of deals which were available on lots of websites such as crunchbase, dealroom, etc. Finally, since most of the information is already in the Li Ka-shing article I would not be against a redirect to there instead.  HighKing++ 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The book discusses Horizons Ventures on pages 504–505. The book notes on page 505: "維港投資取得了很大的成功,特別是 2007 年,維港投資先後兩次投資於 Facebook,共計 1.2 億美元. 其後 Facebook 上市,維港投資獲得 5 倍的投資回報,一舉成名. 不過,維港投資最成功的項目,是投資於視頻會議工具 Zoom. ... "  From Google Translate: "Horizons Ventures has achieved great success, especially in 2007, Horizons Ventures invested in Facebook twice, totaling US$120 million. Afterwards, Facebook went public, and Horizons Ventures gained 5 times the return on investment, and became famous in one fell swoop. However, the most successful project of Horizons Ventures's investment is to invest in the video conferencing tool Zoom. ..." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "全球高科技产业一系列成功故事的背后部有一个共同的投资者，那就是由两位香港女性创立的一家风投公司. 该公司作为个人投资的工具，skYPe、Facebook、Spotify、Waze、Siri、DeepMind和Summly等科技界响当当的大名无不与之相关. " From Google Translate: "Behind a series of success stories in the global high-tech industry is a common investor, a venture capital firm founded by two Hong Kong women. The company serves as a vehicle for personal investment, and is associated with some of the biggest names in tech, such as skYPe, Facebook, Spotify, Waze, Siri, DeepMind, and Summly." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "正近日,李嘉诚旗下的创投基金维港投资,向生产人造鸡蛋的美国食品科技公司Hampton Creek,提供1550万美元资金,引起关注. 关注"前沿"产业,"激进"的投资策略,一向是维港的风格. 而其实际执掌者,便是李嘉诚的亲密伙伴周凯旋" From Google Translate: "Recently, Li Ka-shing's venture capital fund, Horizons Ventures, provided US$15.5 million in funding to Hampton Creek, an American food technology company that produces artificial eggs, causing concern. Focusing on "frontier" industries and "radical" investment strategies have always been the style of Horizons Ventures. The actual person in charge is Li Ka-shing's close partner Zhou Kaixuan" </li> <li> The book notes: "過去 5 年,李嘉誠旗下風險投資業務「維港投資」(Horizons Ventures)在以色列的投資活動非常活躍,迄今已向該國不少最具創新活力的企業投放資金,投資案共達 24 項. 在維港投資所支持的項目裡,其中一個最成功的案例,是一家 GPS 導航的地圖軟件公司「Waze」. " From Google Translate: "In the past five years, Horizons Ventures, Li Ka-shing's venture capital business, has been very active in investing in Israel. So far, it has invested in many of the country's most innovative companies, with a total of 24 investment projects. Among the projects supported by Horizons Ventures, one of the most successful cases is "Waze", a map software company for GPS navigation." </li> <li> The book notes: "在這方面,香港也有這樣的創投獲利高手—李嘉誠. 李嘉誠創辦的「維港投資」,投資多個創科公司,成績亦相當彪炳. 「維港投資」於2007年,亦有向facebook投資1.2億美元,5年後Facebook上市時,估計獲得了最少5倍的回報. 近年,李嘉誠旗下基金投資了全." From Google Translate: "In this regard, Hong Kong also has such a master of venture capital profits - Li Ka-shing. "Horizons Ventures", founded by Li Ka-shing, has invested in a number of innovation and technology companies, and has achieved outstanding results. In 2007, "Horizons Ventures" also invested 120 million US dollars in Facebook. When Facebook went public five years later, it was estimated that it had obtained a return of at least 5 times. In recent years, Li Ka-shing's fund has invested in the entire." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horizons Ventures to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: 3rd only because it's unclear whether Cunard's have been fully reviewed Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This again.  It doesn't matter how much money is invested, how much money the company shovels around, who its partners are, or which analysts want to price its stock.  This article is a perma-stub.  The criteria at WP:NCORP call on us to "consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."  This one does not seem to, and follows the common "in business, raised money" template I mention in WP:SERIESA.  I vehemently disagree with User:Cunard's frequent argument that "by the numbers" reporting on these kinds of companies establishes notability.  FalconK (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Li Ka-Shing is notable, and the coverage of Horizons Ventures on his page is adequate. Having two pages covering mostly the same material is unnecessary. Anyone looking for info on Horizons Ventures will be better off landing on his page, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique to differentiate this venture capital firm from hundreds of other non-notable venture capital firms, which is probably why none of the media coverage actually focuses on the firm itself, beyond passing mentions. Chagropango (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I have the utmost respect for User:Cunard's abilities to find sources, as I hope they're aware. I'll confess I'm often persuaded to !vote keep by sources Cunard presents during formal procedures. I'm sure that's partially because we share similar views on notability and verifiability, and I'm inclined to support such views. In this case, they have presented us a series of routine business news articles, to my limited ability to read them. I performed a reasonable BEFORE and I'm not seeing anything in English sources which reads differently than the summaries of Cunard's translated quotations. Yes the company is verifiable; No the subject lacks significant coverage directly detailing from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Li Ka-Shing is well covered and his foundation gets him more wiki-ink, but given the breadth of this fellow's activities, I don't even think this company is notable to him. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , how is coverage in two book sources and an academic journal article "routine business news articles"? Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to amend my comment to "routine business coverage." This is a company that has acquired capital and invested wisely. Good for them. One of the two women who founded the company happens to be the "partner" "long term companion" of the "30th richest man in the world." Totally independent? Not so much. IMHO, everything I'm reading about Horizons Ventures is seems to be written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing. Just not seeing corporate depth. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Horizons Ventures received two pages of coverage in a book that discusses the company's history and significance. How is this "routine business coverage" and how does this not meet WP:CORPDEPTH? If two pages of coverage in a book is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, what would be enough? Horizons Venture co-founder Solina Chau is a business partner of Li Ka-Shing. She is not the "partner" of him which has a different meaning. From https://www.forbes.com/profile/solina-chau/, "Chau founded venture powerhouse Horizons Ventures in 2002 with partner Debbie Chang Pui Vee. Li Ka-shing came in as a backer two years later." These sources are all independent of Li Ka-Shing. There is no evidence that they were "written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing". Sources with a positive tone that are independent of the subject can be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for reading "long term companion" in the WSJ source and not drawing the conclusion she is totally independent of her business "partner". Are you reading what you just wrote? The standard of corporate depth may be met in a two page book mention? Really? WP:CORPDEPTH literally concludes a company possesses such depth if it's "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." A ridiculously low standard. And these sources are the best that can be found? By a wikipedian whose sourcing acumen is well respected? Write more than a very brief, incomplete stub on this subject and I'll concede depth. Everything I'm able to see in sources is already in the article. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I lost my temper. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe my comments would provoke such a hurtful response infused with hostility at me. You called two pages of coverage "a two page book mention" and WP:CORPDEPTH "a ridiculously low standard". Two pages of coverage in a book is not a "mention". The WP:CORPDEPTH guideline is the community consensus-backed standard even if you believe it is "a ridiculously low standard". The Chinese-language sources contain plenty of information that is not in the Wikipedia article, which at 157 words is already beyond a "very brief, incomplete stub". Editors' comments here dissuade me from investing time into improving the article which could still get deleted after it is improved. I will limit my response to this as discussing this further would make this an even more unpleasant experience for me. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The editors who supported deletion have not refuted the significant coverage about the company in several books (two pages in and multiple paragraphs in ).  is published in 中国证券期货, an academic journal of securities and futures published by the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing. From a Google Translate of the federation's Wikipedia article (zh:中国物流与采购联合会), "China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing is a national, non-profit and industry social organization composed of enterprises, institutions and social groups in the logistics and procurement industry of the People's Republic of China. It is under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council." The article discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing.  To say that these book and academic journal sources are "'by the numbers' reporting" or "routine business news articles" is very inaccurate. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Response The book Hong Kong Chinese Consortium (1841–2020) by Feng provides a standard description of the company on page 504 complete with a map/diagram taken from the topic company's website and on page 505 lists some of the investments - the exact same information from the websiate and the same as that which we've seen in multiple other articles. It is neither significant nor in-depth. Nor is it two full pages about the company as you've described, it is more accurate to say there are a couple of sentences on each of the pages that deal specifically with this company. In a similar vein, the brief mention in the book by O'Neill for a total of three sentences is neither significant nor in-depth. Finally, why do you say that the paper published in Issue 3 2014 of China Securities Futures by Xu Xiaoyin (translator) Li Qiqi is about this topic company? You say that it discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing. Perhaps you've mistaken the reference or something because the article journal you've linked to appears to not even mention the topic company, focussed instead on a different firm "Victoria Harbour Investment" which is another Li Ka-shing investment vehicle. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the analysis of the sources. provides detailed analysis about the company's history on two pages. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate, the text about the company would amount to over 500 English words, which is very substantial coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. It is not surprising that the source discusses Horizons Ventures' investments in significant companies and that other sources do too as this is what is notable about the ocmpany. This does not mean the source is not independent. The inclusion of a map of the investments from the company does not mean the text is non-independent. I read through the company's website including pages like https://www.horizonsventures.com/portfolio/ and https://www.horizonsventures.com/news/ and could not verify that the text of the book is based on the website. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate,  would provide at least 250 words about the company, which is significant coverage. The paper  is about Horizons Ventures. The paper has "维港投资" in the title, which corresponds with the Chinese characters in the logo of http://www.horizonsventures.com/. "Victoria Harbour Investment" is what Google Translate translates the Chinese name of Horizons Ventures to. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I maintain that Horizons Ventures is a notable company under Notability (organizations and companies) that should have a standalone article. I as a second choice support a redirect to Li Ka-shing (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the company is mentioned, per Deletion policy. This will allow a selective merge of the content as well as the redirect to be undone if more reliable sources are found in the future. Pinging, , , , and , would you support a redirect to Li Ka-shing (with the history preserved under the redirect) as an alternative to deletion? Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I could go along with a redirect as suggested by Cunard. BusterD (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, on reflection, a redirect as suggested is a better option, thanks Cunard. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely, it's a good idea.Chagropango (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2022 (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.