Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVC 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. Clear consensus that the company's coverage in reliable sources is not deep enough to establish notability. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

TVC Capital

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company article tagged with advert for three months. Little work done since article was to reduce heavy advertising bias. Asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Most of the subject's coverage in the news is local and/or press releases. Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the article being tagged with the maintenance tag stated isn't a ground for deletion. The nom should have endeavored to work on the issues raised before coming to the AFD. There are also a number of news sources covering the source that accord it some notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that a policy-based comment? Not only the fact of simply tagging which is not going to actually solve it, but we have to nominate such questionable articles because it's actually in policy. Also, as I showed below, all that's literally available is simply local business announcements, notices and funding columns, that's not substance since it's simply republished words. Also, "work on the issues", that can't happen because it's a policy-violated advertisement, see WP:NOT. SwisterTwister   talk  23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not my problem to 'work' on the issues raised on a blatant advertising article written by SPA account and a likely paid editor and the idea that I'm going to work on this article to fix it somehow, when there is 10,000's of other deserving articles is contemptible and utterly crass. scope_creep (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: "San Diego-based TVC Capital, a small private equity firm that specializes in growth-stage investments in software companies, has closed its third investment fund with $115 million in capital commitments. All of the firm’s existing institutional investors participated in the fund, TVC Capital III, along with three new investors, according to Jeb Spencer, a co-founder and managing partner. The new investors include Horsley Bridge Partners, a global fund-of-funds institutional investor based in San Francisco. ... The nine-year-old firm raised $75 million for its second growth equity fund in 2012, and currently has about $225 million under management.  TVC has so far realized three successful exits from its first fund: the sale of El Segundo, CA-based Accordent Technologies to Polycom; the sale of San Diego-based Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae; and the sale of Seattle’s Mercent to CommerceHub, a Liberty Media subsidiary."  The article notes: "TVC Capital, a boutique private equity firm based in San Diego, has raised $75 million for its second growth equity and buyout fund. The firm targets software companies and software-enabled service businesses that are profitable or growing to profitability, provide customers with a “mission-critical” service or product, and are seeking capital to accelerate growth. ... The firm realized two successful exits from its first fund last year—the sale of Accordent Technologies to Pleasanton, CA-based Polycom (NASDAQ: PLCM) in a $50 million cash acquisition, and the sale of Del Mar Datatrac to Pleasanton, CA-based Ellie Mae (NYSE: ELLI) in a deal valued at more than $25 million. Current investments include Seattle-based Mercent, which provides retailing data and intelligence for online merchants, and San Diego-based iQ for Business. TVC Capital was founded in 2006 by Jeb Spencer and Steven Hamerslag."  The article notes: "The San Diego private equity firm TVC Capital specializes in software deals, but TVC is not a venture investor. TVC says it invests in high-growth companies with untapped potential. You could say that Jeb Spencer, TVC’s co-founder and managing partner, views prospective early stage deals in the white-hot consumer Web sector as all sizzle and no steak. As Spencer has explained through the years, he prefers to make investments in software deals that are all steak and no sizzle—or maybe a little sizzle, but not too much. As an example, Spencer points to Centage, a software company based in Natick, MA, that has developed Budget Maestro—budgeting and forecasting software designed for small and medium-sized businesses. In a statement going out Wednesday, Centage says it has raised $9.5 million in Series A funding from TVC Capital and Northgate Capital, a global private equity and venture investor based in Danville, CA."  The article notes: "San Diego’s TVC Capital said this week it has invested $8 million in Celigo, a Bay Area provider of software that integrates cloud-based applications into a single secure platform. ... TVC Capital has more than $235 million under management. It is focused on investments in business software startups. Its portfolio includes Accordent Technologies, Levels Beyond (Reach Engine), Del Mar Datatrac, Limeade, LiquidPlanner and others."  The article notes: "San Diego-based TVC Capital, a software-focused growth equity firm, announced the closing of TVC Capital III with $115 million in capital commitments. ... TVC Capital III will remain focused on investments in and acquisitions of software companies that are generating $2.5 million-plus in revenue. TVC Capital was founded by Jeb Spencer and Steve Hamerslag in 2006, and the founders continue to serve as managing partners of the firm. According to TVC, it has approximately $225 million under management."  The article notes: "TVC III ranks as the largest fund in the firm's arsenal, suprassing the $34 million and $75 million raised by its first and second funds, respectively. ... Founded in 2006, TVC focuses on software-oriented companies generating $2.5 million to $10 million in annual revenues and are at or near profitability but need capital to accelerate growth. The firm, which manages about $225 million in assets, hunts for businesses it believes have distinct competitive advantages and superior products. TVC said its prospective portfolio companies often operate in sectors with less than $1 billion in total revenues and are often passed over by traditional growth equity and venture capital firms.  The firm's first fund, TVC I, has completed three exits since 2011, including selling Accordent Technologies to Polycom Inc., flipping Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae Inc. and unloading Mercent to CommerceHub, a subsidiary of Liberty Media. TVC II recently sold Anametrix to privately held Ensighten. ... Institutional investors backing TVC include Tao Capital, Northgate, and Horsley Bridge Partners."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TVC Capital to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC) </li></ul> TVC has so far realized three successful exits from its first fund: the sale of El Segundo, CA-based Accordent Technologies to Polycom; the sale of San Diego-based Del Mar DataTrac to Ellie Mae; and the sale of Seattle’s Mercent to CommerceHub, a Liberty Media subsidiary (Obvious named mentions of others shown and wording in a form of a press release) Notice the maintained consistency of always republishing what the company said itself, that shows there's no one else involved but the company itself since it's their own business plans and that's all; that's not independent and if all we have to show for it is their funding notices and seeking of it, it shows they're not even establishing with sustained funding hence the need for asking money in PR. No major company will be as seriously PR-focused because they would be stable, this is not and it shows. Also, note how Xconomy is actually an known republisher of PR since it's simply a business financials website, and then the Union-Tribune is a local news source, hence going to obviously advertise its local businesses to local investors and clients, therefore it's unsuitable. If anyone had actually cared to examine these, they would've noticed that PR consistency, and there's nothing else to call it since it's exactly that. Notability wouldn't even ever matter because this is such a blatant advertisement, it entirely violates policy and, because of policy, we delete it, not because of "hoping for improvements later" which is simply a "let's buy time" excuse, not a policy based one of course. SwisterTwister  talk  23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC) SwisterTwister  talk  23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this alone is violating WP:NOT and I'll show why (also, simply because there's a mountain of quotes above means nothing because I'm summarizing everything it basically means and it shows):
 * TVC says it invests in high-growth companies with untapped potential. You could say that Jeb Spencer, TVC’s co-founder and managing partner
 * San Diego’s TVC Capital said this week it has invested $8 million in Celigo, a Bay Area provider of software that integrates cloud-based applications into a single secure platform....It has under management....As Spencer has explained through the years, he prefers to make investments in software deals that are all steak and no sizzle—or maybe a little sizzle, but not too much
 * San Diego-based TVC Capital, a small private equity firm that specializes in growth-stage investments in software companies, has closed its third investment fund with $115 million in capital commitments....All of the firm’s existing institutional investors participated in the fund, TVC Capital III, along with three new investors, according to Jeb Spencer, a co-founder and managing partner....The new investors....The firm's funding....in a deal valued at more than $25 million. Current investments include Seattle-based Mercent, which provides retailing data and intelligence for online merchants, and San Diego-based iQ for Business.
 * From http://www.xconomy.com/author/bbigelow/: "Bruce Bigelow joins Xconomy from the business desk of the San Diego Union-Tribune. He was a member of the team of reporters who were awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for uncovering bribes paid to San Diego Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in exchange for special legislation earmarks." Bruce V. Bigelow shared a Pulitzer Prize in 2006. I do not believe he would be republishing PR. His author biography further states: "Before joining the Union-Tribune in 1990, he worked for the Associated Press in Los Angeles and The Kansas City Times." This demonstrates that he is an established journalist who has worked for reputable publications. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No one said he wasn't (though I don't see how he's connected to the 2006 prize, apart from working at the same firm). Editorial reliability is primarily a function of the publication/employer, not of the employee. ST made other points too about covering the local San Diego beat and the quality of the writing. czar  07:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided the quotes about Bruce V. Bigelow's biographical background to demonstrate that he is an established journalist who has worked at reputable publications. The quality of his writing is fine. That he interviewed the company's employees for the pieces and noted that he interviewed them is good journalistic practice. The articles do not read like advertisements for the company. From http://www.xconomy.com/about/ethics/: "Our editorial principles are old-fashioned and simple. We believe that our content is only of value to our audience if we ensure that it is trustworthy. To that end, all editorial decisions will be made by our writers and editors and will remain independent of our business operations. We promise that our underwriters, advertisers, investors, and partners will have no special influence on the content we present, either on the site or at the events we hold—although at certain events, we may invite some sponsors to introduce speakers or moderate panels. What’s more, to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest, staff and freelance writers will not write about companies or fields in which they invest or for which they perform any non-journalistic work. We recognize that there’s an important distinction between content generated by career journalists who are committed to the ethical standards of the profession and that generated by experts and insiders like the Xconomists (see below). The Xconomists offer a unique and important perspective on business, technology, and society, but they are also enmeshed in many of the potential conflicts of interest from which journalists strive to free themselves. We think the best strategy here is transparency, and so we have designed the site to clearly indicate which content comes from which type of author, the professional journalist or the expert. We also encourage readers to find out exactly where the Xconomists are coming from by clicking through the links below to their bios." No one has provided evidence that Xconomy has violated its published ethics statement. No one has provided evidence that Xconomy is not an independent source of the subject. It therefore can be used as a reliable source to demonstrate notability. From Notability (organizations and companies): "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Xconomy is not a local source so meets the criterion. The San Diego Union-Tribune, a metropolitan newspaper, is a regional source so meets the criterion. I've also added Law360, a nonlocal source that meets the criterion. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with their ethics statement, and it adds little to the discussion about the quality of writing, especially if the writer is acting as his own editor. I cannot qualitatively say that the Xconomy sources, especially alone, are robust enough (whether by content or by reliability) to support a full article on this topic. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Notice how it's created by a SPA account, in October. As soon as it was nominated he came in the 22nd to clean it up. References added are PR and nothing else. scope_creep (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister's assessment of Xconomy's reliability smells right to me. Lots of repackaged PR and not an indicator of independent notability. czar  01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment was edited by scope_creep to add "comment for delete". Cunard (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added a Law360 article to the list of sources about TVC Capital. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - ST's analysis is spot on of the coverage. WP:ROUTINE also comes into play.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for events. Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement/promo piece. News hits are all routine mentions. Fails WP:NCORP. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 04:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a rewrite on the article and removed the advertisement tag, so that should resolve that objection.  I also found a Questia article preview:
 * Bergsman, Steve Mortgage Banking, Vol. 69, No. 8, May 2009, The Return of del Mar DataTrac Questia preview, archived 2017-01-07. "In the history of technology companies and financial backers, Del Mar DataTrac Inc. (DMD), San Diego, boasts one of the more unusual stories. The mortgage banking technology firm has been acquired by the same private-equity firm not once, but twice, in less than a decade. * TVC Capital LLC, also based in San Diego, first acquired DMD...in 2001 when the private-equity firm was known as Titan Investment Partners. In 2005, Titan sold DMD to Fiserv Inc., Brookfield, Wisconsin. * However, the acquisition didn't work out as planned and Titan, now known as TVC, jumped at the chance to buy it back - which it did in 2008."
 * Additional search terms:
 * Unscintillating (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! The firm's name change from "Titan Investment Partners" to "TVC Capital" is a very nice find! Cunard (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the full article through HighBeam. Titan/TVC is mentioned mainly in passing. The article is primarily about Del Mar Data Trac with TVC as the company that has owned it twice. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Passing mention" is not a term that appears in WP:GNG. I also searched for "passing mention" on a Wikipedia search, and the first page mostly only shows it used in AfDs.  As for the article being primarily about the "small, undervalued company"; as per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Significant coverage can be seen in the web.archive.org preview without seeing the full article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors use terms like passing or incidental mentions to distinguish them from "significant coverage" required by GNG and WP:CORP. Also, the WP:CORPDEPTH section of the relevant WP:CORP guideline specifically names such merger and acquisition coverage as routine, not contributing to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Passing mention" is not a term that appears in WP:GNG. I also searched for "passing mention" on a Wikipedia search, and the first page mostly only shows it used in AfDs.  As for the article being primarily about the "small, undervalued company"; as per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Significant coverage can be seen in the web.archive.org preview without seeing the full article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors use terms like passing or incidental mentions to distinguish them from "significant coverage" required by GNG and WP:CORP. Also, the WP:CORPDEPTH section of the relevant WP:CORP guideline specifically names such merger and acquisition coverage as routine, not contributing to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- just a company going about its business; the coverage is routine & there are no indications of notability or significance. WP:PROMO applies as well, as the content is advertorial in nature (and that's after the re-write). The sources offered at this AfD are not convincing that the subject meets GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the reasons stated by MB. 1292simon (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it's almost entirely about funding, isn't that deep, and is mainly local. At this point in time, it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Generally references discussing funding are considered routine and must pass a high bar in order to establish notability, right? I don't see enough outside of that. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (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.