Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Rock 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 keep. There's substantial disagreement here over the quality of the sources, and where they fall on the incidental-to-substantial spectrum. There's good arguments on both sides, so going largely with the weight of numbers on this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Third Rock Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Investment firm, no indications of notability, references don't appear to exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Nature reference fails ORGIND as it relies exclusively on interview/statements from founders and contains no original research/opinion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages alternative.  HighKing++ 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I made this page, and think the company probably meets WP:GNG. That said, there are only a limited number of high-quality sources covering these folks though, so I'm ready to admit that this falls into a notability "grey zone" and I thank the nom for questioning the notability. I've beefed up the references a little bit. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources in the article, especially the Fortune, Boston Globe and Nature articles, are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP-like, resulting in promotional article such as:
 * "Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock creates companies itself by attracting the world’s leading experts to sign on"! Etc.
 * Just a directory listing on a venture fund going about its business. Nothing stands out about it, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage in the reliable sources is indcidental, not substantial. The Nature article mentions it in a general article about the overall field; the Globe includes it in a long list of similar firms. None of theis is substantial coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is simply wrong. The Nature article is primarily about Third Rock Ventures, not the broader field, and the Globe article contains no such "list of similar firms". You may have a different understanding of what constitutes "incidental" and "substantial" coverage, but your second sentence misrepresents the sources. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Concur with Hearts. The Fortune and Forbes articles are entirely about Third Rock. I'm not saying those are the best sources, but the coverage definitely isn't incidental. NickCT (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,  wrong about Nature--but upon reading it again it appears to be PR--even though it appears in a source where would would not expect to find it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - What makes it PR? NickCT (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I see it, It is dedicated to presenting the material as the company would wish it presented.
 * But I gather most people here see this differently; I would withdraw this afd as hopeless, but I cannot, because there's another delete opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Well, I wouldn't disagree with you that the coverage in the article seems positive (perhaps in a way that PR might be positive). But I'm not sure it necessarily follows that it's a PR piece. The author and source don't seem to be connected to the company and I'd think we usually consider Nature to be pretty high quality RS.... Anyways, as always, appreciate hearing your thoughts. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the increasing use of promotional interviews as journalism has left be in doubt about the actual reliability of even the best sources. Nature is  still reliable for science, but it may not be so for profiles and miscellaneous editorial matter--which are not peer-reviewed and never have been.    I've found similar promotional  material on people and companies in the NYT, and Washington Post,   but   in the feature sections, not the actual news. I said many years ago in a RSN discussion that "no source is reliable for every purpose,"  but I did not realize how bad it was going to get.  I still  hope   that WP at least through its crowd-souring method of review --rather than editorial discretion-- can at least keep itself free from such material, but to do that, we will need to revise our standards to look at the actual material, rather than just where it comes from.  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Appreciate what you're getting at and absolutely agree that we should avoid sources whose intent is promotion.
 * Also agree that Nature may not be reliable for editorial matter. That said, it also may be reliable, right? It's possible Nature's "News" section has the same editorial standards the NYT does. Given that we know Nature is reliable in other places, shouldn't we grant them the benefit of the doubt?
 * I don't want to belabor the point, but just because an article presents a positive image of a place and is mostly interview based, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable.
 * We're getting a little hung up on the Nature piece.... There's also the Globe, Fortune and Forbes.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither the Globe nor the Fortune references are Intellectually Independent. As per ORGIND, 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. Those articles rely on interviews with the founders and there is nothing in any of those articles that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Forbes reference fails since the author, Luke Timmerman, is a "contributor" and not a Forbes journalist and is not subject to editorial controls.  HighKing++ 10:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - You seem to be looking at articles which have quotes from folks at Third Rock, then you assume that all the facts in those articles are based on quotes from the folks at Third Rock, and thus the articles aren't "unaffiliated from the subject". I'm a little confused how you're making this logical leap. Just because a news piece quotes someone, doesn't mean that the entire piece is somehow tainted. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Having read the articles, I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Globe article refers to a company announcement and uses statements like "The firm said" along with a posed photo of the cofounders. The fortune article is even worse and meets all the criteria of an infomercial (posed photo, history of company, motivation of founders, problem encountered, problems overcome, success!) and uses unashamedly promotional language throughout. I don't think anyone would seriously believe these are both intellectually independent pieces?  HighKing++ 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok.... So looking at the following Fortune excerpt;
 * When Foundation finally launched in 2010, Third Rock backed it with $25 million. Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins later kicked in too. The total, $40 million, far exceeded the typical $5 million to $8 million Series A biotech round.
 * Your feeling is the source did nothing to independently investigate/analyze it? They just took that factoid for straight from the mouths of the Third Rock folks? What's your basis for saying that? Do you think that that's how journalism works in general? NickCT (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want to remove everything from the article that isn't clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, I'm sure a couple of sentences might be left. But not a lot and not enough and mostly comments about topics other than about Third Rock and since the vast majority of this article is clearly attributable to sources affiliated with the subject, my opinion is that is fails to be intellectually independent. Also, that sentence you've chosen is more of a comment on Foundation than on Third Rock. And sadly, yeah, that's the way a lot of business journalism appears to work in general these days - most journalists are afraid of voicing their own opinions and simply build "stories" around interviews and quotations which end up parroting the company lines.  HighKing++ 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. So is it fair to say when you said "I cannot identify or point to any original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" you meant, "can only identify very little"? Not trying to be a stickler here, and again, I do appreciate some of your points about the "quality" of business journalism, but find consensus is not helped by exaggeration. NickCT (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you'd miss the implied context nor did I think it needed to be explained that I couldn't identify any opinion/analysis/etc germane to the company for the purposes of helping establish the notability of the company. Hope that makes it clearer.  HighKing++ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair enough. So how about;
 * Third Rock won’t disclose its returns. But according to the website of one of its investors, Calpers, its 2007 fund has generated an internal rate of return of 25.7%. That puts it well into the top performance quartile, according to alternative-investment tracker Preqin.
 * That looks like the source did independent verification. Looks like the factoid speaks to the notability of the company. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no point in trying for precision. Any source at all can be objected to, and that's one of the weakness of our use of GNG as the sole or principal criterion. For most sources, I could argue in either direction. Frankly, I think almost everyone makes consciously or unconsciously a global judgement of notability, based on some combination of what the think the encyclopedia should cover and what they think of the particular subject of the article, and then argues to come to whatever conclusion they think should be best. To take an example other than this, I think we should be very expansive for political parties and religious sects, and I argue accordingly.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm ... I just look at the sources. That said, I have on occasion come across an organization that may be very specialist, with mentions in specialist publications that when added up and taken together, leave me inclined to !vote Keep even though an argument exists to disqualify each individual source. Doesn't happen often I'll admit.  HighKing++ 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG is right. Everyone does make some personal judgement about notability. The only question is whether you're able to admit this to yourself.
 * I'm pretty happy to admit that my judgement on this could easily be biased by the fact that I'm involved in the biotech sector. Obviously a biotech VC firm is going to seem more notable to me than it might to other people.
 * That said, we should just be focusing on the sources. I'm a little surprised, b/c at this point the article has 6+ mainstream, high quality RS that provide direct coverage. You've got to grant that there have been a lot of AfD discussions where articles survived with a lot less.
 * I could probably find another dozen sources that provide mentions (e.g. of the kind that say "Third Rockventures funded Company X"), but somehow I don't think that's going help with some of the intransigence here. NickCT (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct, because those types of references would fail WP:CORPDEPTH. There's definitely some intransigence here by people who want to ignore policy/guidelines and instead just "have an opinion". <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defence. Convincing.
 * Listen, as DGG said, if you're going to be really critical, I'll grant you that you could probably discount all these references. That said, the article now has considerably more references (from what are usually considered high-quality sources) than most articles which have survived AfD. You're holding this subject to a different bar. And yes, I get your point about the quality of business journalism and churnalism, so maybe a higher bar is appropriate. But not that high.... NickCT (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not holding it to a different bar. Check my !voting on other AfDs and you'll see I'm applying the same bar everywhere, which are the standards of notability written in the NCORP guidelines. All it takes is for two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'll happily change my !vote. Yourself and DGG are essentially admitting that you're not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP and are !voting to Keep regardless. Fair enough, that's your perogative, but DGG has argued in the past that he doesn't agree with (the application of?) some of the guidelines and you've admitted that applying the guidelines could probably result in the same analysis as mine. Happily, a closer will look at the application of guidelines and the arguments put forward, etc, but from my experience, in practice, the closer will apply whatever the consensus is regardless. Not quite a counting of !votes but close enough as dammit. This is likely to close as a "No Consensus" unless others join in and I'll accept whatever the result is. We're all simply trying to make the encyclopedia better. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm "not holding these references to the standards written in NCORP". I think I simply have a different interpretation of the standards written in NCORP. You've got to admit that if we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" overly strictly, we could probably discount virtually any source... You've also got to admit that we're examining references which would generally be considered acceptable outside the realm of NCORP.
 * Anyways, as indicated by my initial "weak" vote, I realize there's reasonable scope for disagreement here... NickCT (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If we apply "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *correctly* and in the spirit of how to apply the guidelines, then we end up discounting most sources. Not because they're not reliable, but because 99% of business journalism is spam and crap, promotion and churnalism. I'm laughing because as we're having this debate, Ceyockey below added a fantastic book reference which, in my opinion, is intellectually independent and meets the criteria. So that's one good reference. One more and I'll change my !vote. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well now you've got me really confused. The book reference seems like a "simple listing" to me. If anything, I'd call that reference less good than the news articles, b/c it appears to be more of a "trivial mention" than indepth coverage. Regardless, if it makes you happy..... it can't be that bad... NickCT (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it is intellectually independent and discusses their business model is some depth. Ticks the box for me. A "simple listing" is when someone produces a "top 10" list or produces a "directory of VC companies".<b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair enough. It's a little more than a simple listing. But it's also only single paragraph..... NickCT (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (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, North America1000 15:36, 5 September 2018 (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. Relisting comment: Given DGG's change of !vote, consensus is still not evident on whether to keep or delete this article; giving this last re-list a try...
 * Keep changed to Keep on the basis of the present version.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: meh, it's still a "delete" for me. The article is much reduced in length, but still features the claim that I complained about in my iVote:
 * Rather than passively waiting for investment opportunities, Third Rock claims to take a more active role in creating companies by bringing together experts in a field.[6]
 * Who cares what the company claims about itself? It's now a routine, directory listing; no value to the project. I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH being met here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - With all due respect, it sounds like you're taking issue with a single sentence. Your criticism of that sentence may be fair, but it's hardly a rationale for deleting the entire article. NickCT (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sufficiently notable, I believe&mdash;There is material beyond that which has been added from news sources. Case in point, I've added a 'business model' section which much of the content is sourced from a 2015 book edited by Satish Nambisan. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good work. The book reference is also good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines state that we need a minimum two good references. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Well thought out arguments in this discussion for keep-- I agree that the bar needs to be high... "but not too high". Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Kudos on reading that wall-of-text. Impressive. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I live for the drama-- what can I say?! Ha. Cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2018 (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.