Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle 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 no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Jungle Ventures

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

Run-of-the-mill VC company that invests in non-notable startups (investee companies with bluelinks in the "Notable investments" section are also of dubious notability). This article relies on routine announcements of fundraising and investments. Refbombed, fails WP:NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies,  and Singapore. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the WP:GNG is evident, and the subject is well sourced with enough coverage. At least several investments and exits the company made have their own wikipedia pages, that shows the VC is not dealing with small or rubbish startups. --42.60.202.20 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

— 42.60.202.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Agree with nom, all sources are funding announcements, and the "notable investments" is pure advertorial stuff. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * also appears to be a SPA with only one edit. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the nominator and I think that this company has appeared on wikipedia perhaps too soon, or at least it is not right there. There are many notable coverage and mentions, and the VC looks good Singapore and South East Asis, however it's even not close to the legendary Sequoia Capital - an American venture capital firm that had funded Facebook, Apple, Cisco, Google, Nvidia, YouTube and even WhatsApp and European neobank Klarna. It's similar to Azure Capital Partners, however Azuere is American VC and has better portfolio with larger companies onboard. --2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry for my monologue 2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep has enough reliable sources to count as notable --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This account was created on 31 January 2022 and has zero edits between 31 January 2022 and 12 June 2022. M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Tristana Wors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Keep Multiple references are there to support key investments, figures and exits. I found it a good practice in many other venture firms article on wikipedia and used it on purpose, not to make the article spammy/refbombed. I don't know what's better—a stub version or a long version of the article, as both are not perfect. The firm itself is the biggest in the region with a stable long-lasting (10 years) media coverage in local and international news outlets. --Tristana Wors (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. The references in the article don't appear to include any in-depth "Independent Content" from a party unaffiliated with the topic company. It is a big company and perhaps there are references in other languages that my searching skills fall short on. Unless we can identify the references, the topic company fails WP:NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mild keep the page has not a perfect style and sourcing, however it has numerous Techchunch reliable sources and not routine coverage (bigger than just passing mentions) and enough Chinese language news articles are also on the web. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you post links to the Chinese language news articles which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you present the WP:THREE best sources (in any language) to establish notability? M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Many arguments here get off the track of examining whether the available sources do or do not establish notability. A specific focus on the quality of available references would be very helpful in evaluating the outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. There's reference above to "multiple references" and mention of Techcrunch references but nothing that isn't a regurgitation of company announcements. I've spent some time searching for references in Chinese on various search engines but I'll readily admit that my searching in this regard is not reliable but I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Perhaps somebody will post references but until then, topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

1. Techcrunch (2021) https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/12/southeast-asia-focused-jungle-ventures-announces-225m-first-close-for-its-fourth-fund/ The article notes: "Southeast Asia’s funding boom is set to continue, with Jungle Ventures announcing today the $225 million first close of its fourth fund. Fund IV started raising in mid-May and is targeting a total of $350 million. The majority of its limited partners are returning from previous funds, and include Temasek Holdings, IFC (which put $25 million in Fund IV), DEG and Asian and global family offices. The firm says this makes Fund IV the largest fund across all early-stage funds in Southeast Asia this year. Founded in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a $10 million debut fund. Then in 2016, it announced a $100 million second fund, followed in 2019 by its $240 million third fund. Fund IV fits in with Jungle Ventures’ pace of raising a new fund every 2.5 to 3 years, founding partner Amit Anand told TechCrunch. Jungle Ventures takes a concentrated approach and tends to invest in about 12 to 13 companies per fund. It’s relatively stage agnostic, writing seed to Series B checks and builds long-term partnerships with many of its investments. The firm has invested in every round of several companies, including buy now, pay later startup Kredivo. Jungle Ventures’ limited partners also do a significant amount of co-investments; in the last three to four years, LPs have invested close to $400 million in its portfolio startups. Jungle Ventures’ social commerce investments include Evermos, which sells halal and Sharia-compliant goods through agents to their communities. The firm focuses primarily on Southeast Asia, but it also makes investments in India.: 2. The Wall Street Journal (2015) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/DJFVW00120150813eb8dqk2e0: The article notes:Jungle Ventures, a Singapore-based venture firm that invests in a range of software startups based in Asia, has begun raising its second formal fund, a $100 million investing vehicle, a regulatory filing said. The firm has yet to raise capital for the new fund, which is called Jungle Ventures II LP, the filing said. The firm announced in July that it had brought aboard David Gowdey, formerly a partner with TPG Growth, to be to be Jungle Ventures' newest managing partner as the firm begins fundraising efforts. The firm now has four managing partners, the announcement said, including co-founders Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand, as well as former Sony Corp. executive Jayesh Parekh. Jungle Ventures is an early-stage investor in digital-media, software-as-a-service, e-commerce, analytics and payments startups, information from the firm said. Roughly three quarters of the firm's investments are seed rounds, with the remainder being venture-stage rounds. The firm has so far seen several exits, including one in July from travel-technology company Voyagin Pte. Ltd., which was acquired by Japanese Internet-services company Rakuten Inc. Jungle Ventures was also an investor in Bangalore, India-based ZipDial, which was acquired by Twitter Inc. at the beginning of this year for an undisclosed sum. The firm's current portfolio includes Singapore-based digital-media company One Animation, software-as-a-service provider Mobikon Asia Pte. Ltd., e-commerce company Pomelo and more than 20 other Asia-based software companies, the firm's website said.: 3. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/seedplus-is-an-early-stage-fund-focused-on-finding-global-startups-in-southeast-asia/ The article notes: Jungle Ventures started out as an angel investment firm in 2012, but it moved into Series A and Series B financing with its new fund last year. SeedPlus, as the newest fund is called, takes it back to its early-stage roots with a hands-on approach to working with its portfolio. SeedPlus will be run by three new recruits that we recently reported to have joined Jungle Ventures: Michael Smith, who was CTO at streaming service HOOQ, ex-Spotify product manager Gabriel Lundberg, and Tiang Lim Foo, formerly of Evernote. Together the trio — who are listed as ‘operating partners’ at Jungle — will invest in companies in Southeast Asia and work closely with them to scale their business. Jungle Ventures is arguably one of the stand-out investors in Southeast Asia, but SeedPlus is an interesting challenge since — to date, at least — there are few examples of companies with global reach emerging from Southeast Asia. The startups that have scaled the most in the region have provided services very specific to Southeast Asia — Grab is an Uber rival, Lazada is an Amazon equivalent, to name but two — but Jungle is investing significant funds, resources and attention to SeedPlus, which suggests that the team sees the potential for Southeast Asian startups to break that mold and be relevant globally. That makes this is a project worth watching.: 4. Techcrunch (2022) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/17/jungle-ventures-closes-a-600m-fund-bringing-its-total-assets-under-management-to-over-1b/ The article notes: Singapore-based venture firm Jungle Ventures is digging deeper into Southeast Asia and India with the close of its fourth fund. Fund IV totals $600 million, with $450 million for new investments and $150 million earmarked for follow-up investments in its portfolio companies. The fund’s close brings Jungle Ventures’ total assets under management to over $1 billion, which it says makes it the first independent, Singapore-headquartered venture firm that invests across Southeast Asia and India to hit this milestone. Fund IV’s limited partners are split equally between returning investors and new ones. Returning backers include Temasek, IFC, FMO and DEG, while new LPs include StepStone Group. TechCrunch covered the fund’s first close of $225 million in September 2021. Jungle Ventures was founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, launching with a $10 million debut fund. Jungle Ventures has about 60 portfolio companies and says its enterprise value is over $12 billion on $250 million of invested capital, with a loss ratio of less than 5%. Some of Jungle Ventures’ most notable investments include unicorns Kredivo, Livspace and Moglix. It looks for companies that can expand between Southeast Asia and India; for example, Livspace was founded in India and now operates in Southeast Asia, too. Fund IV will continue Jungle Ventures’ “concentrated portfolio” approach, making a projected 15 to 18 key investments out of India and Southeast Asia. It makes many follow-up investments and has invested about $30 million to $40 million in some companies, across multiple rounds.: 5. The Next Web https://thenextweb.com/news/jungle-ventures-10-million-super-angel-fund: The article notes: There’s good new for young startups across Asia after Singapore-based investment firm Jungle Ventures announced the launch of its new ‘super angel’ fund, which it confirms has raised an initial US$10 million to be invested in early-stage businesses across Asia. The firm already has investments in a number of promising pan-Asia startups and Amit Anand, Jungle Ventures founder and managing partner, says that the new fund will target seed-to-series-A funding opportunities, with investments typically ranging from US$100,000 to US$1 million. The company recently put US$1 million into travel startup TravelMob and partook in a US$1.3 million round for DocDoc, and these deals are exactly the type that will be pursued over the next eight years or so. Then there is the role of the Singaporean government, which recently added Jungle Ventures to the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF), Technology Incubation Scheme (TIS). That, Anand explains, means that the government will augment Jungle Venture’s investments, with each US$1 of funding being matched by up to US$5 from the government. The funding scheme is designed to “jump start” deals, the Jungle Ventures founder says, and investors are given the option to purchase the government’s share in startups over time. Some pundits have speculated that this leaves startups unhealthy focused on raising funding rather than other business-related targets, but there is no doubt that it can help encourage startups and aspiring entrepreneurs in the region where investor support lags the US. While Jungle Ventures is based in Singapore, it is casting its eye across Asia for startups that have pan-continental potential. The firm already has strong links in India, but Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and other markets are very much in focus. Jungle Ventures works with a number of other top VCs, including Dave McClure’s 500 Startups, which was a co-investor in DocDoc.: 6. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/jungle-ventures-100-million-fund-southeast-asia/: The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures today confirmed the final close of its newest $100 million fund for investments in Southeast Asia. The firm announced plans for the fund, which is its second, in September 2015 when it completed a first close. It represents a big step up from the first debut $10 million, and with an increase in capital so Jungle Ventures is shifting its initial focus on seed-stage deals to Series A and Series B investments. The company is still very much involved in early stage startup work, but that is being handled by SeedPlus, a new fund it established in May of this year. Jungle Ventures began spending the capital last year, and the plan is very much the same now that the full allocation is closed. Beyond its focus on companies in Southeast Asia, Jungle Ventures plans to continue to look at opportunities in India and, in addition, other parts of Asia Pacific where it can help startups expand into Southeast Asia.: 7. Reuters (2019) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jungle-ventures-fundraising-idINKBN1X82K6 : The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures said on Wednesday it has raised $240 million from investors, including Temasek Holdings, for a third fund designed to back Southeast Asian startups, highlighting the growing interest in the region’s technology firms. Jungle Ventures’ latest fund comes as a growing number of venture capital firms, including Vertex Ventures and Golden Gate Ventures, have been raising funds focused on the region this year. The fund exceeded Jungle Ventures’ initial target range of $150 million to $200 million, Anand said. In its previous fund, the company raised $100 million from investors in 2016 and its debut fund had raised $10 million in 2012. Jungle Ventures’ portfolio includes Singaporean hotel booking and management platform RedDoorz, cloud-based software provider Deskera, research platform Smartkarma and Thai fashion e-commerce start-up Pomelo Fashion. The firm has created an internal rate of return of about 79% with its four exits that included vacations rental platform Travelmob, Anand said. It typically allocates $10 million-$20 million per company, making 10 to 15 key investments in each fund.: 8. Business Standard (2019) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html : The article notes: Jungle is scouting for companies in India which have an opportunity to scale their business into Southeast Asia and globally. Jungle Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms, closed its third fund, Jungle Ventures III by raising a total of $240 million. It includes $40 million raised in separately managed account commitments, for investments in innovative technology and digital-driven consumer businesses across Southeast Asia. Jungle mainly invests in three verticals which include consumer brands for the digitally native, digital platforms for transforming small and medium enterprises and global technology companies born in Asia. Some of Jungle's notable investments in India include Livspace, Moglix, PaySense, Engineer.Ai, Tookitaki and Klinify. Jungle raised more than double the amount of its previous fund, Jungle Ventures II (2016), with nearly 60 per cent of committed capital coming from outside Asia. More than 90 per cent of the capital came from institutional investors spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with new investors accounting for nearly 70 per cent of the fundraise and returning investors for the rest. ungle Ventures was the earliest institutional investor in a number of category leaders in Southeast Asia. These include travel and hospitality startup RedDoorz, fashion e-tailer Pomelo Fashion, online consumer lending and payments platform Kredivo and software firm Deskera. In the past, Jungle has got at least six exits from its portfolio firms including mobile marketing company Zipdial which was acquired by Twitter and travel company Voyagin which was bought by e-commerce firm Rakuten.: 9. Bloomberg News (2021) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-at-first-close-of-new-fund : The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. “We have coined two unicorns this year where we have been seed-to-IPO investors,” Anand said. “We have built a franchise that will repeat quarter after quarter, and that separates us from the one-hit wonder venture-capital providers.” Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August agreed to go public in the U.S. through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.: 10. Inc42 (2022) https://inc42.com/buzz/jungle-ventures-announces-closure-600-mn-fund-iv-india-sea/ : The article notes: Singapore-based venture capital (VC) firm Jungle Ventures has announced the closure of its Fund IV at $600 Mn. The fund will consist of $450 Mn in the main fund and $150 Mn in additional managed commitments. With this fund, Jungle Ventures will have total assets under management (AUM) at $1 Bn and the VC firm said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC firm to reach this milestone. Incidentally, Fund IV was originally targeted at $350 Mn, with participation from existing investors such as Temasek, IFC, FMO, and DEG. Along with these, new investors such as Mizuho Bank Ltd. and StepStone Group also committed to the fund. Founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, Jungle Ventures was launched with a $10 Mn debut fund. The VC firm has a portfolio of companies with an enterprise value of over $12 Bn, investing around $250 Mn. Some of the startups that form part of Jungle’s portfolio include Livspace and Moglix, the two Indian unicorns. Jungle Ventures had been an early-stage investor in both of them. Apart from the two unicorns, Jungle Ventures also has recently backed the likes of HRTech startup inFeedo and blue-collar workforce management platform Betterplace, the latter of which was exclusively reported by Inc42. Other investments made by Jungle include the likes of edtech startup Leap and insurtech startup Turtlemint, among others. The VC firm has said that it will make around 15-18 investments across startups based in India and Southeast Asia from Fund IV. Jungle Ventures already has made commitments from the new fund, including Vietnam-based digital banking startup Timo and Indian D2C consumer electronics startup Atomberg. The aforementioned inFeedo was also an investment made from the new fund. The first close of Fund IV came in September 2021, when Jungle Ventures raised $225 Mn from existing investors, including Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corporation and German development finance institution DEG.: 11. The Economic Times (2021) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-to-invest-in-india-southeast-asia-startups/articleshow/86163515.cms : The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August, agreed to go public in the US through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.: 12. The Wall Street Journal (2019) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jungle-ventures-third-fund-holds-175-million-first-close-11556571660 : The article notes: Jungle Ventures held a $175 million first close of its third fund and expects the new vehicle to reach a $220 million final close in the coming months, a person familiar with the matter said. The new fund, Jungle Ventures III LP, already has collected more than the Southeast Asian venture investor’s previous vehicles combined. Its second fund, a 2016 vintage-year vehicle, closed at $100 million and its first fund, a 2012-vintage offering, closed at $12 million. The new vehicle initially had a $200 million offering amount, according to a December filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Placement agent Eaton Partners LLC is assisting with the fundraising process, the filing says. The Singapore-based firm targets early-stage investments in three main areas: consumer brands for the younger population of Asia; digital platforms targeting small and medium-size businesses; and global technology companies originating in Asia. Jungle Ventures’ investments include online home-furnishings marketplace LivSpace, apparel e-commerce site Pomelo and cloud-based business-application maker Deskera, according to its website.: 13. Business Standard (2015) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/jungle-ventures-appoints-david-gowdey-as-managing-partner-115072300382_1.html : The article notes: Jungle Ventures today announced the appointment of David Gowdey, formerly with TPG Growth, as managing partner. With this appointment, the Singapore-based firm will now have a team of four managing partners led by co-founders, Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand as well as Jayesh Parekh, co-founder of Sony Entertainment Television India who joined the firm in 2013. Earlier this month, Jungle appointed Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of Tata Group, as a Special Advisor. Gowdey brings to Jungle Ventures over 16 years of experience in investing and working with internet companies in both mature and emerging markets. He will be based in Singapore, where he will help lead Series A and B stage investments with a focus on the consumer internet sector. Jungle is in the process of closing its second South Asia focused fund. Some of the other advisors with the Jungle Ventures network include Gokul Rajaram, product engineering lead at Square; Lim Dershing, founder of JobsCentral; and Alon Sobol, director of ISP/ telco relationships for Spotify.:
 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Did a review suggested by :

14. Tech in Asia (2022) https://www.techinasia.com/jungle-ventures-fourth-fund : The article notes: VC firm Jungle Ventures has closed its fourth fund at US$600 million. The investment vehicle includes US$450 million in commitments in the main fund, with the rest coming from additional managed commitments. This pushes the firm’s assets under management to over US$1 billion. In a statement, Jungle Ventures said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC that targets the Southeast Asian and Indian markets to reach that threshold. The fund itself started with an initial target of US$350 million. Half of the total commitments came from existing investors such as Singaporean investment firm Temasek, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Dutch development bank FMO, and German financial institution DEG. Japan-based Mizuho Bank and US-based StepStone Group also joined the fund as limited partners. The VC firm plans to deploy the fund into 15 to 18 key investments across India and Southeast Asia. Founded by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a US$10 million maiden fund. David Gowdey then joined as managing partner in 2015. It currently has an enterprise value of more than US$12 billion, and its portfolio includes unicorn companies such as Kredivo, Livspace, and Moglix. Jungle Ventures recently promoted Yash Sankrityayan, Sandeep Uberoi, and Manpreet Ratia as managing partners.: There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jungle Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Wall of text, much? Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage outside funding announcements. I'd drag Livspace to AfD as well, the only bluelink 'unicorn' claimed in this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's wall of text means but I only picked the coverage concerning vc firm from the most reliable and deep media coverage provided in the article. It it significant enough. However, I didn't do it for you or myself, but for the one who will decide. I found @Seraphimblade's comment quite reasonable that no one wants to analyse the quality of sources and coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey that's significant effort, it is appreciated. You say those references pass NCORP's Primary criteria. As per WP:SIRS (past of the Primary criteria) *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. Each reference must include deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the references you've selected above, they are all based on company announcements, regulatory filings and other company-created information. This fails the "Independent Content" criteria since there is no analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the topic company. For example (I'll just ramdomly pick two of the references above):
 * this from WSJ is about the topic company's "hunt for $100m South Asia Fund" and also mentions the company's earlier announcement of a new managing partner. So the sources for the article (as confirmed by the content of the article) are 1) regulatory filing 2) an Announcement and 3) information from the firm. I am unable to identify any "Independent Content" so this fails WP:ORGIND - and therefore WP:SIRS and therefore fails the Primary Criteria. The next reference from India Times dated Sept 13 2021 is about the company closing the first round of its fourth fund and raised $225m. The second paragraph mentions an interview with a founding partner. Also worth pointing out that this exact article originated as a Bloomberg article (journalist also accredited as "Bloomberg"). If this was based on an announcement - which is very likely - then I would expect to see the announcement covered by a lot of other publications and all with a high degree of overlap in terms of information. And we can see that sure enough, it was also covered by Business Today (uses identical quotes too)
 * Business Times (also practically identical) by way of example. Based on the near-identical texts in different publications it obviously originated from the company and those publishers/journalist have not added any additional in-depth "Independent Content" - fails ORGIND also.
 * Final point. Essentially there are two types of references (all governed by WP:RS) and while just about any reference including PRIMARY sources and interviews, etc, published in WP:RS can be used to support a fact or piece of information within an article, only a smaller subset go on to meet the criteria for establishing notability.
 * I hope the above helps explain what kind of references are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability - namely ones where an unconnected party have written in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.  HighKing++ 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I read numerous AfD's and also the rules and see, that anyone is glad to explain the rules as they want. Concerning WSJ and India Times - I don't think they are the best. Techcrunch has much more deep coverage. But, almost any of the given sources is independent, as the rule states: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article." And here the rule says how to decide whether or not the sourse is independent:
 * Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsor (the media are independent and track the company's history from 2013 to 2022 with steady interest)
 * Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties (yes, there are some comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them, and only added above the original coverage by the journalists with their overview, description, commentary, analysis, and evaluation of the company as needed for a significan coverage) Taking into consideration that criteria, I see that most of the sources I highlighted here are independent, not relied in any way to the firm (are unconnected parties), and they do include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking. Also here is another point: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: Such (deep) coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.   I see the page has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond incomplete stub.
 * ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not ready to discuss here anything more. Please, don't ping me or address me any comments. Bye bye ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say "yes there are come comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them" you appear to be assuming that all of the parts of an article that are not quotes must therefore be "Intellectually Independent". That's isn't true. You provided a truncated definition of "Independent of the Content" and the part you left out is the bit which says that "Intellectual Content" must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It would be helpful if you could explain how "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations ... the easiest and simplest explanation is that they're based entirely from a company announcement/PR/etc.  HighKing++ 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you cherry-pick the most suitable pieces of text which suit your theory and apply them too broadly. Plus, your generalization "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations" doesn't lave here any room for further discussion. However, I agree, that some pieces of text if copied by other news media may look not truly independent by its nature, but it's still a POV/assumption. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that's the way it appears to you but in the absence of any other "theory", what do you think? In many cases when I see this exact same conduct (edit - should read "the exact same material in multiple sources") I can locate a link to the initial company announcement (maybe on PRNews or similar) but I haven't in this case. I'm not trying to cherry pick any text in particular but sometimes it is easier to pick a phrase or a quote and search for it and then look to see what else is identical between different sources. For example, in looking at the "Business Times" article, it contains a quote "We have coined two unicorns this year". Searching for this quote uncovers multiple different RS publishers repeating the same news about the $225m fund all within a day of each other. I believe it is reasonable to discount sources such as these as containing "Independent Content" and I would argue that to assume otherwise is disingenuous.  HighKing++ 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * you are right, press-releases work in this way. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How many editors in a given day have to tell you that your unique theory regarding "Independent Content" is incorrect for you to take a hint? Its three in the last one, is that higher or lower than normal? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources have given them significant coverage. You only have to pass the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both.  WP:GNG has been met.  The company manages over a billion dollars, so business media will cover their activities.   D r e a m Focus  20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give much weight to AUM based on private, self-assigned startup valuations. A company which was valued at $3 billion about two years ago was recently valued at just $13 million . Just goes to show how absurdly overvalued these startups can be at the peak of the fundraising bubble. We've deleted at least one private company valued at $5 billion this year and that one had far better sources than the ones on this article. I'm not able to find any WP:SIGCOV beyond the routine fundraising announcements for this company. M4DU7 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument "you only have to pass GNG *or* SNG, not both" has been debated many times. The consensus is that for companies/organization, you should generally follow NCORP guidelines. In exceptional circumstances you might default to GNG but I don't see any reason to deviate here.  HighKing</b>++ 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is this consensus you speak of? WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline.   D r e a m Focus  05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ The consensus is the NCORP guideline itself which, unlike other SNGs, increases rather than lowers the rigor involved in proving notability beyond GNG. As a community supported policy page, it demonstrates that the community as a whole thinks corporations must be held to a higher standard to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll add - WP:NOTABILITY has two sections. One is called the "General Notability Guidelines" or WP:GNG for short. The very next section is called "Subject-specific notability guidelines" or WP:SNG for short. In SNG it even specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. I don't think you can argue that NCORP is not the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations? The line taken by some editors is that there are *two* paths to notability - you can either pass GNG *or* pass the SNG. You're welcome to argue that the topic passes GNG just as others are pointing out that the topic fails NCORP. You appear to miss the point that even GNG requires "Independent" sourcing (and NCORP explains how, in practice, that applies to companies/organizations) and you've yet to link to any sourcing that you claim even meets GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per the detailed source review above by ArcticSnowWind, which highlights significant media coverage including this from Business Standard [] calling the company "one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms." The source review shows all independent, reliable sources. Meets WP:NCORP. There should be more efforts to expand our financial business coverage beyond the United States and its Western allies. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP criteria. ChristinaNY (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not this again.  Seems to be nothing to say about this other than a bunch of financial transactions (see WP:SERIESA).  That does not meet WP:NCORP.  And one can't use WP:GNG as a backdoor claim that articles documenting routine financial transactions establish notability; they don't.  User:ArcticSnowWind's lengthy statement of sources on this article is moot, because aside from heavy reliance on sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH, the articles cited are all routine financial transaction coverage.  Why do we have to constantly rehash this?  Is there some reason to keep articles that only, and will only ever, list the amount of money raised and subsidiaries?  Wikipedia is not a chronology of the doings of market whales.  FalconK (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. The listed sources are enough to write an article not only focused on fundraising or product releases. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The newly minted IP above voted Delete at one other AfD before rolling up here - and for our first two edits, we're right on top of AfD protocol!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as an IP I made several votes on recent AfD debates listed on Wikipedia. I see the IPs often vote and voted here so I don't see any troubles. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 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.