Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LETA 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 delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star   Mississippi  02:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

LETA Capital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the cited sources are passing mentions in articles about companies the firm has an invested in. The only one with remotely significant coverage is an interview with one of its founders, so not secondary. Searching for additional sources in English and Russian just turns up more of the same: either passing mentions or primary interviews, press releases, advertorials, etc. Also almost certainly created by an undisclosed paid editor and since edited exclusively by other paid editors. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Joe! Thank you for your comments! I wanted to elaborate a bit more on your comments about the article. First of all, I disclosed a conflict of interests, I openly claimed, that I work for LETA Capital, and that is exactly why I am fully aware of its deals, exits and fund activities. Secondly, I have provided all the links for respectable media sources, where it is clearly stated in what companies and when LETA Capital has invested, interviews with partners, opinions, comments, etc. Thirdly, I could have asked a third party editor to make those changes and nobody would ever find out any connections between the editor and LETA Capital investment firm, but I decided to be open, transparent and with absolute integrity add valuable information about a well known and publicly awarded VC firm. That is why I strongly insist to accept all the changes made by me, and in confirmation of my words I list 20 links, performing a significant coverage of LETA Capital and its Partners Alexander Chachava and Sergey Toporov in well known media and databases.
 * https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/leta-capital
 * https://angel.co/company/leta-capital
 * https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/23/100-million-leta-capital-wants-to-be-a-friend-to-russia-speaking-founders-everywhere/
 * https://techcrunch.com/author/alexander-chachava/
 * https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/alexander-chachava
 * https://www.theinformation.com/articles/startups-question-russian-vc-investment-after-attack-on-ukraine
 * https://www.venturecapitaljournal.com/leta-capital-unveils-third-fund-at-100m/
 * https://www.forbes.ru/person/274193-chachava-aleksandr - 14 articles in Forbes
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/pitch-deck-example-prodly-10-million-no-code-devops-2021-10
 * https://venturebeat.com/2022/04/05/gaviti-raises-9m-for-saas-collections-automation/
 * https://venturebeat.com/2021/04/07/synthesis-ai-emerges-from-stealth-with-4-5m-to-create-synthetic-face-datasets/
 * https://vc.ru/finance/106237-aleksandr-chachava-leta-capital-russkoyazychnye-startapy-nedoocenivayut-a-zarabotat-na-nih-mozhno-deystvitelno-mnogo
 * https://www.forbes.ru/svoi-biznes/443667-leta-capital-s-partnerami-vlozili-10-mln-v-platformu-dla-sozdania-prilozenij-prodly
 * https://www.forbes.ru/forbeslife/397875-mne-nravitsya-oshchushchat-sebya-prostym-chelovekom-pravila-potrebleniya
 * https://rb.ru/investor/view/leta-group/
 * https://rb.ru/longread/chachava-leta/
 * https://rb.ru/longread/leta-interview/
 * https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/414153-vletet-v-stenu-na-polnom-hodu-kak-venchurnye-investicii-mogut-navredit-vashemu
 * https://vc.ru/tribuna/6897-robo-startups
 * https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/02/novakids-investors-bet-35m-that-it-can-teach-kids-english/
 * Moreover, in order not to disseminate the false information I am absolutely open to provide even more links, articles, interviews, etc. to support my position. Hope that this massage clarified a lot and we will not have any misunderstanding in the future! Gegamova (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of those links provides significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With all my respect, all of them are absolutely independent and reliable, as well as the link you proposed in your first comment: https://secretmag.ru/trends/players/aleksandr-chachava-leta-capital-my-podhodim-k-investiciyam-kak-predprinimateli.htm.
 * They meet all the four criteria.
 * Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. — does the whole interview for TechCrunch qualify? Absolutely.
 * Be completely independent of the article subject. — is Mike Butcher, editor-at-large at TC, an independent journalist? Absolutely.
 * Meet the standard for being a reliable source. — TechCrunch has more than 11M monthly visitors, according to SimilarWeb, can it be reviewed as reliable? Absolutely.
 * Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. — Did an interviewer provide his own own thinking based on primary sources? Absolutely
 * While editing this article I took as a reference other articles about venture firms. All my edits are based upon relevant and accurate information, they are independent and do not provide any promo. Please, look through the edits and the sources again, there are no violations of Wikipedia rules.  Gegamova (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, with respect, I don't think you know what those words mean in a Wikipedia context. Your list includes entries in databases (obviously not significant), self-written author bios (obviously not independent), publications explicitly deprecated and removed from the article before (obvious not reliable), and interviews (obviously not secondary). Please read those guidelines and get back to us. Also do note that a source has to be all four (significant, independent, reliable, secondary) to count towards notability, and there needs to be multiple such sources. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, have you opened the link? https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/23/100-million-leta-capital-wants-to-be-a-friend-to-russia-speaking-founders-everywhere/ Or you just see the word "Russian" and start cancelling the whole source/author/person being interviewed? Does it work like that? Tell me, please, why this text is not secondary? It has author's opinion, impartial and respectable. Again and again, I could have asked dozens of people, who do not say loudly, that they have a COI, to edit the article about LETA Capital, which was not created by me, by the way (sic!), I've just added a couple of adjustments to provide audience with the relevant information. OK, so let's just remove ALL the Wikipedia articles about venture capital firms, do you agree on that? All of them are based on such sources like I've quoted. Do you have an example of the article that is based on something else? Gegamova (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said the TechCrunch article wasn't secondary? It's probably the best source out of the bunch, but it's from a dubious source, doesn't say much of substance, and is only one. We're only talking about LETA Capital right now, but if you've found other articles on venture capital firms with this level of sourcing, by all means nominate them for deletion too. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Joe, I eternally respect your work in the field of archaeology, your articles about scientists and professors, but I don't think that you are correct in this case. The article about LETA Capital has been a part of the encyclopedia for 4 years already, this article was not created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the deals, exits and the firm's strategic focus, as far as I am familiar with those facts and I have provided the article with the relevant sources. I have never hidden the fact, that I am connected to LETA Capital, and that is because my edits had no promo aims, they were absolutely impartial, they contained no personal attitude, they were just pure facts, as that is required for the purposes of the encyclopedia. Moreover, I added the links to the databases and to the firm's Partners' pages in the major media outlets in order to show that this information has already been reviewed by multiple commissions, editorial boards and that this information is reliable. I've added those links in order to prove that LETA Capital has been a part of the venture capital, tech and entrepreneurial discourse for the past 10 years and that the article about LETA Capital is worthy of being in Wikipedia. Gegamova (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh, joy, another WP:COI-plagued article. Those are fun. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With respsct, no they aren't fun. I wish we could just ban COI, period. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is more of WP:LIST than an article. It's not even worth keeping as list. Venture capital firm that does just that, provide venture capital. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm normally the biggest business article defender here, but this one is lacking. Most of the sources are paywalled or in Russian, hurting my efforts to review them. I translated part of [] and see that it's mostly an interview of the founder, but don't know if the publication is reliable or not. I have to leave that to people more familiar with Russian media.  - can you select the 2-3 best Russian sources from the article and the list above? The Techcrunch source [] is a decent start, but there's not much more, besides funding activity.  And their funding activity doesn't seem to be that big relative to other VCs and private equity firms we see on Wikipedia. I thought about suggesting doing an article on the parent Leta Group, with a section for the Leta Capital division, but English sources for the parent are limited as well. A Russian speaker could also help here to see if that makes sense with the Russian sources. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG and I'll be changing my comment to a delete.. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Tim! Thank you for the comment! I will be happy to navigate you through all the sources. I understand, that is looks like a COI, but I never tried to deny the fact, that I have connections to LETA Capital and my edits were truly impartial. And once again I wanted to mention, that the article about LETA Capital had not been created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the activities of the firm. Gegamova (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per the cogent source analysis by Joe.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! What if I produce more sources? Will it be a relevant argument to recover the page? Gegamova (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2022 (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.