Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakestar


 * 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. -- Scott (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Lakestar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Ref are all funding news.  scope_creep Talk  13:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage that isn't trivial or attached to bare existence, as nom mentioned. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  19:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the creating editor, I wanted to leave my comments. After covering them while studying, I was amazed Lakestar didn't have a Wikipedia article. So started the Wikipedia article as they are considered one of the biggest tech VC funds in Europe. There are various publications that give them this title and anyone who researches the subject properly will find this. Significant coverage - The article currently references 22 articles which are either mentions of investments (as mentioned above) or articles solely based on the investments. There are many more that could be used, this was merely a starting point. Articles based solely on Lakestar include New York Times, Bloomberg and TechCrunch. I would therefore say that coverage demonstrates their notability within European funding circles.
 * There is also information on them and their equity in Spotify. I only used one reference but again there are more. They were also a major investor in Airbnb, again adding to the notability.FiveRoses (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last relist. Not quite a consensus yet.
 * Keep. Ranked #6 in Europe in 2016, seem to be covered as a topic (e.g. (the last is Forbes staff, not a contributor)) and growing larger. Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, alas. The notability, though overblown by some supporters, is evidently there. -The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle  (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; coverage is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. For example, this self-congratulatory prose is cited to Forbes.com/sites which is non-editorial portion of Forbes:
 * The venture capital's first seed fund recorded a 70% internal rate of return from its investments. The firm has capitalized on this success and has continued to raise funds to invest predominantly in European tech start-ups.[1]
 * Source:
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete References fail the criteria for esablishing notability which is a stricter standard that that used for references that support facts/information. References are based on announcements and interviews or inclusion in lists and they fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by and  demonstrate that the company passes Notability. The articles contain independent analysis of the subject. For example Forbes notes (my bolding), "Where other investors have partnered with high profile friends or turned to the support of a U.S. firm, Hommels built his own, Lakestar, with competitively strong returns and a fraction of the notoriety."  The Bloomberg News article notes (my bolding), "Venture capital firm Lakestar is attempting to raise the largest-ever European fund for startup investments -- another sign that the region’s entrepreneurs are continuing to attract floods of potential suitors."  Cunard (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If you take a look at WP:NCORP, the guideline for organizations/corporations, it states that references must be in-depth and not mere mentions-in-passing. The Forbes reference in an interview with Klaus Hommels and only mentions Lakestar in passing, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I would also say that a Forbes article relying extensively on an interview with a connected source such as a founder/CEO/etc contains any content where you can be sure of its independence. The Bloomberg reference is not a reliable source since it clearly states that the information is from unidentified "people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private" and the reference therefore fails WP:RS.  HighKing++ 18:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited the Forbes article as having independent analysis of the company though I agree that it is not in-depth. I consider the Bloomberg News article to have sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject despite the "people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private" quote. Journalists frequently rely on anonymous sources for information and only print information from such sources if they trust those sources. Here is additional coverage about Lakestar:  The article notes: "Swiss venture capital fund Lakestar will begin investing in Israel and is believed to have allocated tens of millions of dollars for this purpose. The fund, which has invested in companies such as Facebook, Skype, Spotify, and Airbnb, raised €500 million in two recent financing rounds. Lakestar's investment manager in Israel is Gilad Novik, who up until now represented Horizon Ventures, controlled by Chinese billionaire Li Ka-shing, in its investments in Israel. In Israel, Lakestar will focus on early-stage and early growth stage fintech companies planning to expand their business to Europe. It will also invest in automotive, artificial intelligence, and big data technologies." The article contains a quote from Gilad Novik. The article notes: "As the European startup scene has matured over the last few years, so too has the VC scene. But a handicap has always been the issue of follow-on funding. Gradually, however, the most successful firms have managed to raise new funds based on past successes. One such has been Lakestar, the early investors in Spotify, Skype and Facebook. Today they announce Lakestar fund II, a new €350m ($385m) fund, which takes its place as one of the largest funds in Europe. ... With offices in London, Berlin, Zürich and New York, the firm could be said to be in a position to bridge the continents for investors and startups alike. Just as the other, aforementioned VCs.  It helped that Lakestar I took positions in the successful Maker Studios, which was acquired by The Walt Disney Company in 2014; and Harry’s, the US-based subscription shaving service, which has since purchased the Feintechnik razor factory in Eisfeld, Germany." The article contains quotes from founder Klaus Hommels.Cunard (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Response The Bloomberg reference fails as a reliable source even for supporting details within an article never mind the higher standard of NCORP. We don't accept "anonymous" sources for information. The Globes reference is based entirely on information provided by the company and is standard churnalism where an "executive" is interviewed and provides forward-looking details of future plans as well as a profile. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article also fails WP:ORGIND as it is "dependent coverage" since it is based on a company announcement - "Today they announce ...". Lots of similar churnalism available on the same announcement such as TechEU, Venturebeat, lots more references in the article itself and their own press release. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our source would be Bloomberg. Bloomberg relying in part on anonymous sources has no bearing on its very high reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. How can Bloomberg have "high reliability" when it relies on information provided by an anonymous source which is not regarded as reliable? This source would be rejected if used to support facts/information attributed to the anonymous source within an article, which is a lower standard for references that those used to establish notability. The other information in the article about the company is standard template copy on the company (where they've invested, office locations, size of funds) which can be found in the PR statements. ORGIND states that a reference, for the purposes of establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and there's no evidence of that in the Bloomberg article. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Take Bloomberg to RSN - good luck. Bloomberg conducted research - part of journalistic research is relying on sources - which usually are anonymous. The use of anonymous sources (as well as analysis and synthesis of various stmts by Lakestar) are the hallmarks of a WP:SECONDARY independent journalistic piece by a RS. Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your response highlights the difficulties in analyzing references for the purposes of establishing notability. Never have I said that Bloomberg, the company, is not a reliable source. I am merely stating that the *reference* in question fails the criteria for establishing notability (and would also fail the criteria for supporting facts/information within an article). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg is relying on a source known to and vetted as reliable by them. Bloomberg is not disclosing that source to the reader. Using unnamed sources is a common journalistic practice. As Icewhiz noted, "Our source would be Bloomberg", not any named or unnamed source mentioned in the article. The TechCrunch article provides independent analysis of the subject: "Lakestar II is the largest fund to be raised by the firm, after following on from the €135m ($150m) Lakestar I fund, which was launched in 2013. This new raise now sky-rockets it into a position close to Europe’s heavier VCs, such as Index Ventures, Accel Partners and Atomico. It means more options for European startups looking to scale in Europe, rather than having to move elsewhere. Lakestar II will be led by Lakestar’s shrewd Founder and Chairman Klaus Hommels." Comparing Lakestar to other "Europe's heavier VCs, such as Index Ventures, Accel Partners and Atomico" and explaining Lakestar's impact on European startups is independent analysis. This information is not present in the press release, the tech.eu article, or the VentureBeat article. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To further add to this, the Globes article clearly states they interviewed the Swiss ambassador, Jean-Daniel Ruch, so the assumption that Lakestar's PR team is the only source doesn't add up. As for the Bloomberg article, "Lakestar is targeting a close of around $800 million, according to three people with knowledge of the plans, asking not to be named because the matter was private." You can look at this in a number of ways, but ultimately this demonstrates that Bloomberg have researched the subject. If they hadn't, they wouldn't make this statement and would say "according to reports" or "Lakestar state," but they don't. The Bloomberg reporter clearly states he has fact checked the claims, which demonstrates original reporting.FiveRoses (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: the sources offered above are mostly WP:SPIP, such as:
 * "Venture capital firm Lakestar is attempting to raise the largest-ever European fund for startup investments
 * Swiss venture capital fund Lakestar will begin investing in Israel and is believed to have allocated tens of millions of dollars for this purpose.
 * Emphasis mine. This is all about company's hopes and aspirations and, as such, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment for this to be WP:SPIP then you are suggesting that the New York Times, Financial Times, Bloomberg, TechCrunch and many others are all allowing Lakestar to self promote on their media platforms. There might be the odd exception of this happening with contributors, but the problem cannot be that widespread as you are suggesting. Also when the Financial Times runs an article titled "Tech investor Klaus Hommels raises new €350m fund," that is not hopes and aspirations, its financial reporting. As for Israel article, it also states "Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch told Globes" and then follows on "Ruch says that the Swiss embassy has so far organized visits to Israel by 12 groups and delegations of businesspeople and administration figures." Surely that demonstrates wider reporting on the subject? For SPIP to apply to that article, it would have to essentially be a redistributed press release. The announcement also came at the "Swiss embassy in Israel," so this is major news of financial investment between two countries, even if its private money.FiveRoses (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not the fact that they are reporting it, it is financial reporting, but the reporting is generic, not just here, but in almost every business article that goes to Afd, and it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The business articles that are solid on WP, and that survive from the instance they are created have independent coverage outwith financial reporting. Most financial report on here are generic, and are covered as trivia on WP:NCORP, and is explicity designed to negate the trivia as notable sources.  scope_creep Talk  11:33, 4 January 2019 (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.