Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribbit Capital (company)


 * 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 merge to Meyer Malka. The "delete" !voters have not given a reason why a merge to the founder's article is not suitable, so that shall be the default result in this situation until and unless the founder's article is nominated for deletion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 06:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ribbit Capital (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORGCRIT requirement for sustained in-depth coverage. References are either interviews of principals (Coindesk) or brief mentions of routine financial transactions. The 2015 NYT piece has depth but is primarily about the CEO, not the company. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Request: This article is in need of a major update. Ribbit has asked if I will propose one as a COI paid editor. The company now has quadrupled to $2 billion under management - |Ribbit Capital Exceeds $2 Billion in Assets Under Management With New Fund and has more "unicorns" (start ups with valuations > over $1 billion) than any other financial tech VC firm, by a large margin - | Ribbit, Index Lead Fintech Unicorn Hunters. I'd also note that 23 sources were deleted dif, since the approved draft moved into mainspace, describing in detail their many investments through mid-2016. These sources, although passing mentions, show sustained coverage up to that time. This type of consistent coverage has greatly intensified since then because the firm is 4x larger. There are also more significant sources, like the ones above. Since I can't do direct edits on the article because of COI, and Request Edits are frozen during an AfD (in practice, even if not policy). I'd make a special request to the nominating editor Bri and the only voter so far K.e.coffman that if both approve, one of you move this article into draft space so I can directly edit (highlighting proposed changes) and/or remove the AfD for 72 hours to let me submit a Talk page Request Edit ad have it reviewed. In my experience, voting editors only judge the article as it reads in mainspace. You can then immediately submit it to AfD again. If you aren't both in agreement, or I'm wrong about whether this is an acceptable practice, I'll add another note with partial new sourcing. Thanks. BC1278 (talk)
 * New and Sustained Significant Coverage: (Not yet in article because I can't directly edit) | Ribbit Capital Exceeds $2 Billion in Assets Under Management With New Fund (Wall Street Journal) (2018. Overview of firm); | Ribbit, Index Lead Fintech Unicorn Hunters (CB Insights) (2018. Importance of Ribbit compared to other VCs in same sector, with Ribbit the most successful by the "unicorn" measurement; | Fintech investment powerhouse Ribbit Capital aims for $420 million with its latest fund (TechCrunch) (2018. In-depth profile of the firm, not an announcement; the firm did not comment for the story. Techcrunch is a Reliable Source, but with several cautions, such as whether the writer is a columnist or has a conflict of interest,  RSP. This story is an extensive analysis of the company, reported story, written by a staff reporter, not a contributor); Already in the story is |One Venezuelan’s Plan to Reinvent U.S. Financial Services (Ozy Magazine), an extended profile of firm founder interwoven with in-depth look at Ribbit Captal.  Ozy (magazine) is a major international online publication backed by Laurene Powell Jobs.) In addition, to establish sustained coverage, there are also several dozen passing-mention stories, not establishing notability individually, but taken together, show its sustained activity (stories similar to the 23 removed sources noted above).  The founder doesn't give many press interviews, so that discourages big feature stories, but the firm's huge foot print that is well tracked through publicly-disclosed investments.BC1278 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TC coverage is in-depth. I'm getting 404 errors for the others you list above. ~Kvng (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kvng, fixed. Thanks!BC1278 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to the founder The problem with articles on the heads of venture capital funds is that they are usually so closely associated with the fund, that we do not really need two articles. Until the person become prominent in political or charitable activities, there really isn't that much different to say. In this instance, there might be a case  for doing the single article on the person, because he had previously founded a $700 million online brokerage. So I'd keep the bio, and merge the article on the firm into it. When there's enough to split, it can be split. (My personal idea of when a financial company becomes notable is about $1 billion)., you're using the same sources to show notability of the firm and the person. That's of course unavoidable, because the same information applies to both, but it's hard to see how that justifies two articles.  DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey User: DGG. Ribbit has $2 billion under management. |Ribbit Capital Exceeds $2 Billion in Assets Under Management With New Fund Doesn't that pass your personal threshold? Or do you mean something else by $1 billion? Ribbit looks like a weaker story, IMO, because a) a list of their investments though 2016 was deleted dif and b) the article hasn't been kept up to date, especially with the many start ups they backed that become billion dollar "unicorns." | Ribbit, Index Lead Fintech Unicorn Hunters (CB Insights) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Commenting that there is a fair enough bit of coverage for GNG, at least. Of course corporations meet with a higher standard. Per DGG's recommendation, if there is a consensus it can't pass CORPDEPTH, a merge to the founder would be a good way to preserve the (reliable) content. I disagree, however, that the same topic is superior to two topics, due to coverage overlap. Different information is mined from the same sources for a biography and a corporation, and so the end results are very different for readers.
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MidwestSalamander (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Typical branded/marketed articles, only here for the shareholders/investors, with usual refs that are very shallow, either reporting how much it raised in venture funding, or how much it has in assets. Article fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.  scope_creep Talk  12:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and WP:ORGCRIT.  scope_creep Talk  13:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to the founder Per DGG above JamesG5 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing notable. Cabayi (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Add: The founder is not notable either, so I would oppose a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant and sustained coverage in sources listed by above. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the references above, of the 5, 4 of them are from press releases as the language of the article is identical, as is the header names. Clearly the references are not sustained coverage.  scope_creep Talk  14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and also agree founder is not notable either Lyndaship (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Meyer Malka, the founder. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Specifically, WP:CORPDEPTH considers announcements of capital transactions to be trivial coverage. showed consensus that CoinDesk  should not be used to establish notability. —  Newslinger   talk   10:09, 25 March 2019 (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.