Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YL 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

YL Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of notability Given references are purely announcements of investments. Google searches not finding any in depth coverage of the company. noq (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as probably "too soon". $27 million is (sadly?) pocket change in the venture world these days. If mentioned enough times as funding notable company then I would say some grounds to have an article (again the breadth vs. depth of coverage argument though). Looking at the companies listed, they are somewhat dubious too, in early stages with some notability challenges of their own. If nobody else wants to rescue, could be userified under my user space, in case future rounds come along or the companies in the current rounds survive to become more truly notable. Any article that uses the word "solution" that does not pertain to solutions or "cloud" that has nothing to do with clouds is questionable in my experience as being buzzword puff. W Nowicki (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing particular found in a search. As nominator noted, the references in the article are routine announcements of investments (and IMO they smell like rewritten-press-release "churnalism"); in any case they are not significantly ABOUT the company. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, article is written according to guidelines of Wikipedia. --Wikifan115 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it meet WP:ORG? noq (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak delete - there's some coverage there but most of it simply confirms this is just another VC company with a small number of mid-tier investments to its name. WP:TOOSOON seems about right. The coverage that lists the company as "and others" is telling I think. I'd be fine with userfication if someone wants to babysit this. Give it a year or something - it'll get there. Stalwart 111  12:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the article's creator, I will try to address the notability concerns mentioned above. Indeed, $27.5M VC fund is not so big in Silicon Valley, however it is quite significant in the Israeli market, where the firm invests. YL Ventures is one of the most notable venture capital firms in Israel, with wide coverage from the local press. I did not include these sources due to language barrier. A Venture Capital firm is measured mostly by its portfolio companies. Since YL Ventures is a relatively young fund, most of its companies haven't reached maturity, however they are known mostly to industry experts. For example, see Seculert and BlazeMeter WP Articles and their references. All of the references in the article are from the most prominent news sources of the global high-tech industry. Some of these articles might be laconic, however these mentions suggest that YL Ventures and its portfolio companies are sufficiently notable. This type of coverage is the standard for Ventures Capital firms, you are welcome to compare this article to larger VC firms' WP pages. This article will expand over time, as YL Ventures invests in more companies from its new fund Oferschr (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that VC firms (this one and others) don't inherit notability from their portfolios. We are judging the notability of the firm itself, not the firm "and its portfolio companies". If we did so, then every "Mom and Dad" managed fund investor who put money into Facebook would be notable. It doesn't work that way. You should also know that while the existence of articles for other companies might be a helpful comparison in building new ones, it has no real impact on the notability of this company or any other.
 * What might help your case is the existence of news media and other sources from Israel. Sources are not required to be in English. That said, for the purposes of this discussion it might help if you were able to explain what new sources say so that those here can judge for themselves. Even better if you can find someone to help with translation who is not connected to the creation of the article. (Neither is required, you just have a better chance of building consensus that way). What we're looking for are sources that discuss the history of the firm, the activities of the firm beyond its day-to-day business. More routine business announcements - YL supported X or YL invests in Y - aren't as valuable. Stalwart 111  21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I second Stalwart111's suggestions: extensive coverage in non-English Israeli sources might well uncontroversially establish the notability of this fund. Mandalini (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2013 (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.