Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idein 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Idein ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just supported by a grab-bag of weak or unreliable sources that cover startup funding; there are no substantial details on the company or its lasting non-local notability. Fails WP:GNG and only supports WP:ADVERT of the group by SPAs that created and sustained the article. Obliged to go through the debate procedure as the article was de-PRODded by its creator with a nonsensical edit summary. Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how does it fail the general notability guidelines. Most of the sources mentioned are notable and reliable websites and print media known for such coverage. I will accept deletion, and then create any such page only after more sources considered notable and reliable according to the other editors here are found. But share what is needed to call it notable. Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also do check the pages of other venture capital or private equity firms. For example this is the page of Inventus Capital Partners. Notability of such a firm is defined by the news of its companies getting covered in news. Presence of such firms on wikipedia helps startups reach out to relevant companies for investment. Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'll be happy to address both your points. To your first point how does this fail to meet notability criteria when there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES some of whom are even print media. The problem with sourcing is this. Citations in the "investments" section are really about other companies, as I think you realized when you labeled most of them "...mention in ...". That's not in-depth coverage. So we can pretty much ignore that section as far as notability is concerned on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. The History section covers the founders themselves in citations 10 through 14. So we're really just talking about the quality of the remaining sources #1 through #9. Which are comprised of (in order) two business directory listings, a short blurb in Economic Times about funding for one of their subsids/investments, an exec interview, a bio sketch of one exec, passing mention on startupawards.biz (non RS), two more exec interviews, and finally a Mint piece that mentions one exec among 9 unrelated execs . Summary: Failure to meet the notability requirement, in fact pretty much described as what not to do in WP:CORPDEPTH : "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability".
 * To your second paragraph my reply is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep a poorly written article. And to boot, a fine example of why WP:SPA editors who may actually be working for the company admit that they work for the company or its subsidiaries don't write good articles, and why new restrictions on such editors are being seriously discussed by and others (ref User talk:DGG) . - Brianhe (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the time taken to explain more about the article and the flaws. Such point wise explanation has helped a lot in understanding the limitations with respect to perceived notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. Also, thanks for linking the discussion on SPAs. You may go ahead with article deletion. Ashok.Mehta.31122 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Lots of references but without exception, they fail WP:RS - the references are either trivial mentions or PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing ++ 21:13, 5 February 2017 (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.