Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NextView 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

NextView Ventures

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

While the number of mentions is quite extensive, unfortunately I cannot identify any that would help meet the primary inclusion criteria for organisations and companies. Most of them are essentially namechecks in terms of depth of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies,  and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, California,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: references 1 (WSJ) and 25 (Boston Globe) are reliable and non-trivial, so WP:SIGCOV is met. This makes two independent, reliable, secondary sources.  However, most of those pieces are fluff so I wouldn't be devastated by a delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link to WSJ article via The Wikipedia Library/ProQuest: https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/2072224429. I'd agree on the fluff and agree to disagree on IND for this one and DEPTH on the other, but will reserve soliciting comments from RSN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Alpha3031 here. Wcquidditch WeirdNAnnoyed says the articles are "reliable and non-trivial" so SIGCOV is met and then goes on to say that the articles are "independent". Perhaps Wcquidditch WeirdNAnnoyed is only considering the "functional independence" aspect of WP:ORGIND because both articles fail the "intellectual independence" aspect. The WSJ article is a fluff piece where the author goes to their offices, interviews the founders and partners, regurgitates company "mission", methodology and other information (as told by the company exec) and has no "Independent Content". Similarly, the Boston Globe article is another puff profile which also relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with one of the founders. No "Independent Content". Both articles fail ORGIND.  HighKing++ 12:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @HighKing. You mean User:WeirdNAnnoyed, not Wcquidditch! Rupples (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Needs more to pass WP:NCORP, specifically with regard to WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH. I'll accept the WSJ article as counting towards NCORP notability requirements (thanks User talk:Alpha3031 for the link), though quite a bit is interview quotes with the company founders. Disgree that the Boston Globe (Boston.com) amounts to SIGCOV as little is independent coverage of NextView — that article discusses seed investing in general and another Boston company. The rest of the sources appear to be based on funding and investment announcements put out by the company with little independent editorial comment. Rupples (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed. Meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
 * In-depth coverage in Tech Crunch:


 * In-depth coverage in Wall Street Journal:
 * Bullish On Boston, NextView Ventures Closes $21M Debut Fund
 * NextView Captures $40M for Second Fund
 * VC in 2015: Rob Go of NextView Ventures
 * NextView Looks to Be Entrepreneurs' First Call for Seed


 * In-depth coverage in Business Insider:


 * In-depth coverage in Fortune:


 * In-depth coverage in Boston Business Journal:


 * In-depth coverage in VentureBeat:


 * In-depth coverage in Boston Globe:

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NextView Ventures to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Klasmer (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: An additional assessment of sources brought up in this discussion would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In-depth coverage in Axios:
 * Comment GNG/NCORP provides better examples on which to consider sources including ones with non-Independent Content such as regurgitated PR and Announcements and "interviews" which make up the references provided by Klasmer above.  HighKing++ 10:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. I'm being shut out of a number of the new sources put up by User:Klasmer above so I'm withdrawing my !delete vote as there may or may not be sufficient coverage to satisfy NCORP within those I can't access. I note however, that Klasmer has only stated the sources fulfil the GNG and has made no mention of NCORP's criteria. Rupples (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The latter two WSJ articles seem to be from Dow Jones Institutional News again, thus available from ProQuest 2063287815 for "VC in 2015" and 2072224429 for "First Call". The other two are not on ProQuest or EBSCO, nor Gale that I could tell, but "Bullish On Boston" seems to be available as a Google AMP according to archive.is. Not sure about the second one, "NextView Captures $40M" though. Klasmer, was there anything specific in there beyond the funding announcement? Also, I was assuming, but was there anything other than the WSJ articles that you couldn't access, Rupples? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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.
 * The sources listed above are regurgitated PR and Announcements of funding, or relies on information/quotes provided by the company/execs. None of the sources listed above contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND requirement and none contains in-depth information *about the company* as per CORPDEPTH. All it shows is that the company has a functioning marketing dept. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment on the souces put up by Klasmer. TechCrunch - first two written by editor-in-chief, Connie Loizos, based on a SEC filing and company blog are independently written. The other three by Natasha M. are based on partners' statements with little independent editorial. Together, could be argued there's sufficient to count towards notability, but marginal. @Alpha3031 The WSJ. Lizette Chapman, I'm getting a single sentence on NextView, Russ Garland 3 sentences, but I'm unsure whether I'm seeing the full articles and perhaps there's more behind the log-in. The VC in 2015: Rob Go of NextView Ventures on Managing Exuberance article isn't about the company. The NextView Looks . . .I'm accepting as counting towards notability. Business Insider & Fortune, no in-depth coverage of the company. Boston Business Journal (i) regurgitation of the Fortune article (ii) not in-depth (iii) about Thred-up, an investment, not NextV. (iv) based entirely on partners' quotes, (v) & (vi) same article, unable to access. Venture Beat, not in-depth coverage. Boston Globe, not in-depth, largely about seed investing in general. Axiom, a single sentence & partner's quote, not in-depth. Rupples (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey — got around the Boston Business Journal block for no. (v). There's a bit of editorial but hardly in-depth. WSJ (i) same. That leaves just the WSJ (ii). Unless proved differently, going to assume it's similar depth of coverage to WSJ (i). Applying NCORP guidelines ORGDEPTH and ORGIND to what's sufficient, indepth, independent coverage in reliable sources I still don't see enough here so reinstating delete. Rupples (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. The sources in the article fails and those listed above are mentions and routine business news, I don't see anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NCORP specifically WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. Raising all the money in the world does not equate to impact until it's actually invested somewhere and has generated interesting enough results that journalists will write about the outcomes and specifically how the venture fund had a role beyond being a passive investor. lizthegrey (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (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.