Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After a second extended discussion it seems that this VC firm is a borderline case of notability and so there is still no consensus as to whether or not it should be kept or deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Toba Capital
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14   scope_creep Talk  09:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I created this article. It was nominated for deletion in 2018, and the discussion was closed as no consensus.  Since then, the article has been further improved with additional info, suggesting even less of a reason to delete it now. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep per my comment in the previous AfD at Articles for deletion/Toba Capital. There is sufficient coverage about Toba Capital in this article in The Mercury News titled "With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry" and this article in the Orange County Business Journal titled "Toba Rolls Ahead With String of Exits, IPO" to establish notability per Notability. The Mercury News article contains quotes from interviews with Toba founder Vinnnie Smith, but there is enough research from the journalist to establish notability: "Former Quest chairman and CEO Vinny Smith, for his part, is plowing the fortune he reaped from the sale [of Quest Software to Michael Dell for $2.4 billion] into a new venture firm called Toba Capital. In the past few months, Toba has invested in more than a dozen enterprise software startups. On Tuesday, San Jose’s Quorum — a maker of data-recovery software — will become the latest addition to Smith’s portfolio, with an $11 million infusion. ... And Smith is spreading the wealth beyond the Bay Area. Though he’s recently opened a three-person San Francisco office, his team of software-executives-turned-investors also is deployed in New York, Texas, Minnesota and Southern California. ... Since getting back into the venture business, he’s attacked things with gusto. Last month, Toba led a $10 million investment in Palo Alto software maker WSO2; last week, Smith’s firm doled out $9 million for Codenvy, a San Francisco startup that helps developers build and test apps via the cloud. ... As for the firm’s name? It refers to the Toba Eruption, a volcanic explosion in Indonesia more than 70,000 years ago that some scientists believe led to a global winter that supercharged human evolution." Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH as an announcement of the IPO for the first ref and WP:ORGIND, with Smith, 48, who rarely grants interviews, told this newspaper he expects to put as much as $150 million into venture deals this year. According to figures from the National Venture Capital Association, only half a dozen venture firms invested more in the valley in 2012.   scope_creep Talk  12:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good additional point for voters and closers to consider. This is a very publicity shy company, so it took a lot of effort for the media to even get the information out that we have in this article. This is the largest venture-capital company in Orange County, California. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when has publicity and shyness been linked to notability. I don't believe it is. I think if the company was sufficiently large it would generate its own wake, sufficient to get an article and it wouldn't need to rely on a furtive director to provide its branding.   scope_creep Talk  14:52, 18 November 2020 (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   14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets have a look at the references:
 * * Top VC Firms Invest 47% More in Local Companies Its paywalled.
 * * Quest Vet Dickson Unretires For New Enterprise Its paywalled.
 * * Smith moves on after grueling battle with Dell An interview. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * * With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry Smith, 48, who rarely grants interviews. Fails WP:ORGIND. An interview.
 * * Dell sells its majority stake in Smarsh to investment fund Toba Capital Routine annoucment of sale of stock. “It’s been a dramatic difference for us, even in a short amount of time,” said Stephen Marsh, Smarsh’s founder and chief executive, reflecting on the new ownership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND Interview style article.
 * * Toba Puts $4M into Kids' Drink Maker Paywalled, but routine announcement of investment. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * * Toba Backs Software Startup Paywalled.
 * * PatientPop Picks Up $10M Routine announcement. This crowd seems to be a bit more honest in their approach. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * * Tech investor Peter Thiel ups stake in Lystable Paywalled, but not specifically about company. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * * Toba in $11M Series A Round Paywalled but more routine investment announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * * Duplicate news. Effectively non-rs.
 * * On Vinny’s Table: Impact Investing Paywalled. Likely routine announcements.
 * * Vinny Smith's Toba Capital Gets Exit At Codenvy Routine announcement. WP:CORPDEPTH
 * * Toba Capital Backs Grow.com In $16M In Funding More funding announcements from a company that provides funds. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Looking at these refs, they are effectively the news of the companies operation. Not a single references, starting from the first reference, indicates why it is notable. It is a small private company of 15 individuals with no evidence of being notable. It is entirely non-notable as it exactly the same as numerous other VC funds of similar, of which they are hundreds. It entirely generic in nature. All that has been presented in its references, are a list of operations as announcements in local trade papers. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR. It has no place on Wikipedia.  scope_creep Talk  12:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete another run of the mill company looking to promote, with duplicate after duplicate offered up as support. Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is not a run of the mill company - it’s the largest venture capital firm in Orange County, CA, and is controlled by a tech billionaire. I’m not getting how this is promotional - all the sources demonstrate sustained continuous third party media coverage, satisfying NCORP. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment User above has been blocked as a sock, one of at least two created to vote delete in recent AfD discussions for articles I created. Am I allowed to strikethrough the comment since they've been blocked, to make this more clear? <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I just struck through the sock comments per site convention. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I've really no idea how the last AfD was closed as No Consensus. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Cunard has no credibility in listing sources as 99% of the sources he lists in NCORP-related AfDs fail NCORP requirements and I commented on the failed references at the last AfD. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 09:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless it says otherwise at the reliable sources noticeboard, these sources are all independent third party media outlets, and are just as good as the sourcing used for most articles. From what the media reports about the company and its publicity-shy founder, I bet they’d be happy to have this deleted. But it’s not up to them if we deem them notable enough, and the sustained media coverage makes it so. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Let's assume they're all "independent third party media outlets" - that says nothing about the content which, as you know, also has to meet a standard as described in ORGIND. None of those references meet that standard. "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. All the references above are PR and announcements with information provided by the company or a connected source. Fails our guidelines to establish notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm missing the main point, which is that this is the largest VC firm in Orange County, with over $1B invested, and that makes the company notable. If you can refute that, I'm all ears. I'm in an ongoing debate about sources that are based on company announcements, but we both know that there's a gatekeeping process.  Otherwise, more non-notable company announcements would see the light of day.  In addition, the numerous independent reliable and clearly verifiable sources that have been identified and integrated into the article detail the scope of the company's investment impact on the tech world, a subject underrepresented on Wikipedia.  If you can't read any that are paywalled, I'd be happy to email them to you.  I just realized that an article was created for founder Vinnie Smith since you nominated Toba Capital for deletion two years ago.  Before the Smith article was created, you suggested at Talk:Toba Capital that you thought he was more notable and that the company article should be renamed to an article in his name.  I think if you read both articles now you'll see that will be awkward, but you can always suggest a merge proposal and see where it goes. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an odd situation. Sources that may be used to support facts and information in an article do not have the same criteria as sources that may be used to establish notability. I notice you refer to these sources as "independent reliable clearly verifiable" but I would argue that your use of the word "independent" only refers to "corporate independence" in that there are no dependencies or corporate connections between the topic company and the publisher. You are deliberately not asserting that the content is independent because if you did, you know it would in all likelihood meet NCORP. There's no getting around the requirement for references that meet NCORP, nothing more, nothing less. So to be clear - I'm not refuting the "facts" in the article insofar as the AfD process is only concerned with notability, I'm simply pointing out that the references to date fail NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:30, 2 December 2020 (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: Relisting per the requests of Tim and Cunard. Sorry for the mix up everyone. One of those weeks...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough to pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It is clearly not a promotional article, and has not been the target of paid/COI editing. This sort of company often prefers a lower profile, so the coverage is relatively thin for an organisation of this significance. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you describe to be exactly why a company of 15 people, is notable, particular since the coverage is woefully bad?   scope_creep Talk  17:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are the only one saying the sourcing is woefully bad (although HighKing agrees with your opinion that the sources don't show notability). I disagree, and have to reiterate that it's all independent coverage, in reliable third party sources, which by definition exactly meets WP:NCORP guidelines.  I don't want to hit reviewers over the head with a wall of citations, which indeed wouldn't add more substance to the article, but you can see this link showing the 278 Toba Capital articles published just in the Orange County Business Journal alone. [] They're paywalled, but I can send any of them to you if you'd like. Just send me the URL. Also per NCORP, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet". I just added some minor recent coverage from the LA Business Journal, to add to the demonstrated range of media sources reporting on the company. Also, the number of employees a company has shouldn't be the basis of notability, since you could never argue the reverse - that a large headcount alone implies notability. It helps, but you still need media coverage. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll disagree with you saying that it is "all independent coverage". What is your definition of "independent" exactly? Because I don't think it is the same as WP:ORGIND which is part of the applicable guidelines for companies. Post a link to the best reference here and lets discuss exactly why you believe it is "independent" and we can also look at NCORP to show why it might not. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They're all independent, per Wikipedia's definition. From WP:IS, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." If I'm writing an article about a notable company, I avoid using primary sources like press releases or links to a company web site unless absolutely necessary, even though others at the help desk have told me that press releases are allowed as sources, I suppose if you preface the info with "The company announced ...". I'm not going to make it easier to challenge the article by proxy by singling out any single coverage - the article needs to stand on the body of sources I identified. Diligent reviewers and closers can read Wikipedia's relevant policy and the sources themselves.  I posted a link above to 278 articles in just one independent publication alone.  It shouldn't matter at this point, but I'll reiterate my offer to send the text for any of those articles to any interested readers - please email me using the email contact process on my talk page. Lastly, I'm trying to understand how you are interpreting WP:ORGIND versus WP:IS based on our past discussions, and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but the only conclusion I can come to is that you feel that if an article was started because a media outlet based it on a press release it read, than that immediately disqualifies the coverage for being dependent?  That's a narrow interpretation that I don't think is valid; otherwise, very little coverage would survive. As an off-the-cuff example, this [] would preclude us from writing about Apple's new headphones. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why use WP:IS, which isn't even a guideline nor has any official standing, to cherry-pick a definition which suits your narrative when the actual official guideline in WP:NCORP specifically gives a definition of "Independent" at WP:ORGIND which has been pointed out to you multiple times. What you're trying to do is make room for regurgitated press releases and announcement to establish notability which would lead to an avalanche of spammy company articles. What NCORP strives to achieve is to require references which are not based on company announcements and PR. If the company is notable then it is obvious that somebody, somewhere will just write about them and provide genuine "independent" analysis or commentary and not just regurgitate whatever the company says. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of incidental coverage but scope_creep's source assessment above (and HighKing's in the last AfD) are on the money—not seeing which sources are meant to prove in-depth coverage of the company itself. Ping me if you find what's paywalled behind those OCBJ articles, though. (not watching, please )  czar  08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's one with updated investment info that I just added, just one of the 278 articles about them in the OCBJ.  It was from a VC themed issue in February, and anoints them as the "800 lb gorilla of Orange County". I PDF'd it and uploaded to Google drive - hopefully you can read it. [] Here is the full list of all the OCBJ coverage - if there are any that you're interested in, I'll pdf them as well []]] <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provide enough coverage in my mind to support the information in the article. This seems good information to have in an encyclopedia, and should be improved rather than deleted if there are concerns about sourcing.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if you actually looked at the references, which I don't believe you did, you would see that they are actually very low-quality, that in terms of semantics, fail certain Wikipedia policies, for which the most important notability policy for business articles is WP:NCORP. It is clear from your non-reason based rationale that you haven't read that either.   scope_creep Talk  23:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the company meets WP:NCORP. The "organization ... has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published." San Jose Mercury News, the Orange County Business Journal, Los Angeles Business Journal, TechCrunch and the Boston Globe clearly show reliable coverage by unrelated sources. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are many company articles that lack adequate sourcing, and many company articles that are obviously promotional in tone, and I !vote to delete those ones. This is not one of those ones. General arguments about how this opens the door to a putative flood of spam articles do not convince me here. Billion-dollar venture capital firms are not the same thing as Bargain Bob's Boot Bonanza. We can still apply NCORP to, say, Bob's Phone Repair And SEO Marketing Solutions. In addition, I was able to access one of the OCBJ articles, and there was no evidence to me that it was "dependent coverage". The word "routine" is being used pejoratively here, as though it's an objective term, and I'm not sure what it means in this context. It's routine for news organizations to report on news. I do not see a strong argument against keeping the page, scope_creep responding to every single keep !vote notwithstanding. jp×g 07:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I see your another editor that doesn't agree with NCORP that is both disruptive and against Wikipeda Terms of Use. Here is Orange County Business Journal advertising page. It gets so much advertising, that it has total of 9 separate account managers for a relatively small readership of around 20k people. That tells me that most of the money tha journal makes is from advertising. What we have is concerted effort to subvert Wikipedia Terms of Use to ensure fintech company with 7 employess has some extra advertising. Tim, your definition of what contitutes notability is abosolutly jaundiced. Particulalry when all the references you have posted above, which I examined last night also fails WP:NCORP. Being a billion dollar vc firms, that is your rationale for being notatable, with only 7 people employed there.     scope_creep Talk  12:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm literally quoting the policy you cited as being most relevant, word for word, and it suggests keep. How is supporting that disruptive? Once consensus changes, going against it starts to be the disruptive act. What's the saying - "hate the game, not the player"? And my offer to show any of the other hundreds of independent sources about the company still stands. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of disruption because they don't agree on your interpretation of a guideline is unwarranted, and making paragraph-long replies to every single person who disagrees with you on an AfD is bludgeoning, but baseless accusations of CoI are inexcusable. Do you have any evidence at all to demonstrate the claim that I'm part of a "concerted effort" to "subvert the terms of use" to ensure a company has "extra advertising"? If not, please apologize and strike your comment. jp×g 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and scope_creep  comments above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2020 (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.