Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notion 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notion Capital

Notion Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several of the references meet WP:NCORP including the CRN article ([1]). the WSJ article ([2]]) and the Financial Times article ([3]), among others. The coverage might be due to the founders connection with MessageLabs, but that doesn't mean it isn't there (notability isn't anti-inherited). Also, the article seems fairly well-written, and only modestly promotional.-Mparrault (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: CRN is pretty indiscriminate, while WSJ appears to be an interview. The other sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. $290M raised appears to rather small for a venture fund. Created by a SPA with no other contributions, Special:Contributions/Waynegibbins, clearly for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Revisiting the many other deletes by K.e.coffman and HighKing it seems clear there is an agenda to delete every VC firm from wikipedia regardless of size or local importance. Misterpottery (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Misterpottery, there seems to be a coordinated effort by HighKing to delete Venture Capital firms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangrove Capital Partners and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Ventures, for example). Not much thought has gone into it - HighKing has just copied and pasted the same filler comment. This attempted mass-deletion seems to be an abuse of the AfD process, since it does not allow defenders time to respond adequately. I suggest that the closing admin close none of the AfDs for delete, due to the attempted abuse of process.-Mparrault (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it would be preferable to undo the most recent ones initiated by HighKingMisterpottery (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misterpottery, are you sure that your suggestion is to Delete? Reading your comments, it appears you might've made a mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Perhaps you're missing the obvious. I don't delete the articles and this is a community process. I've noticed from many of your comments at AfD and above that you have a difficult time understanding "intellectually independent" based on the references you put forward as demonstrating notability. The AfD process gives editors at least a week to respond and the nominations are spread out. The common denominator here (and real reason for deletion) is that none of the topics of the articles meet the criteria for notability. Making ridiculous accusations about a "conspiracy" lowers your credibility. Myself and K.e.coffman often have opposing views but its often easy to agree when the standard of some of those articles is so low and obviously there either as free promotion or a mistaken believe that Wikipedia is another Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that start ups are expected to have a Wikipedia article about them as soon as possible. This means that a conflict with Wikipedia policy is rather common. "It's in my nature". -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.