Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm concerned that most of the sources listed here don't seem independent enough to unoquivically verify this fund's notability. Tech in Asia (TiA) dominates the reference list. However, WP's entry about TiA isn't in good standing but more importantly can Singaporean sources, specifically those that focus on business and tech be considered independent by WP's standards. Media censorship in Singapore says, "Instead of subscribing to the Western press model, it (Singapore) believes that a non-adversarial press can report accurately and objectively." So can a media outlet that's subject to state restrctions be considered independent? Then there's pieces like this KR-Asia profile https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing which appears to be a repackaged press release with little or no editorial oversight. Judging by the page's maintenance tags and source list I think a discussion about this subject's notability is needed.~ 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDX420, thank you so much for these inputs.

Duly noted your concerns about the coverages. I have removed the sources you mentioned, and will promptly replace them based on your comments.

From what I see, ACV is one of the reputable VCs in SEA, and they do have coverages from other reputable media aside from TiA, KrAsia.

I will revise the article accordingly, and then we can revisit this discussion again. 182.2.147.248 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGX420, I have revised the article to be neutral in tone and replaced most of the links with more authoritative ones from a diverse source of websites. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. Further feedback is welcomed! Loxy Monster (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.techinasia.com/top-venture-capital-southeast-asia	Questions over Singaporean publication's independence	? No	~ Appears to be a listicle	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ My understanding is that companies pay to get featured in TC.	~ My understanding is TC can support some facts but isn't considered reliable enough to support notability.	The article is about the fund.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2023/03/24/executive-column-ac-ventures-says-founders-must-keep-innovating-despite-tech-winter.html	It's an interview	? No consensus at WP:RSN	? Paywalled	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/07/04/indonesias-pina-raises-3m-seed-funding-led-by-ac-ventures-vibe-vc-and-y-combinator/	"Serving users through software versus relationship managers allows PINA to provide holistic financial advice without steep fees and account minimums." Doesn't sound like independent journalism to me.	It looks like another press release aggregator.	It's not about AC Venture it's about PINA	✘ No
https://technode.global/2023/01/31/indonesias-edenfarm-raises-13-5m-funding-led-by-tmi-appworks-ac-ventures/	Routine press coverage	Rehashed press release with little or no editorial oversight	It's not about the subject, it's about a company that they funded	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-13/vc-who-backed-carsome-raising-250-million-for-early-stage-fund	It's not a Bloomberg editorial	~ Might be reliable to an extent but, is it reliable enough to support notability?	? Paywalled	✘ No
https://www.idnfinancials.com/archive/40823/ula-secures-investments-tencent-jeff-bezoss	Press Release	No consensus but I doubt it.	Press release with little to no editorial oversight.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/agaeti-convergence-merger	Non independent per my hypothesis in my nomination.	? To my knowledge there hasn't been enough on-Wiki discussion about this sources reliablity to determine whether it is reliable or not.	It's clearly about the fund	✘ No
https://acv.vc/ac_team/pandu-sjahrir/	It's the fund's website so there may also be a WP:ELNO issue here that needs looking into.	~ Primary sources are reliable up to a point in that one can verify who their CEO is by looking at the website, the same way as one can verify that the sun exists by looking at it but that's not anout to verify notability.	~ It's more about the CEO really	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See my hypothesis in my nom	? Not enough discussion on this source's reliability but some discussion on Singapore's press' independence (or lack of).	It seems to be about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://finansial.bisnis.com/read/20210607/563/1402268/pandu-sjahrir-jadi-ketua-asosiasi-fintech-ini-rekam-jejaknya	Blog site	Blog site	Again it seems to be about the CEO and not the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See nom	See nom	Not about the fund	✘ No
https://www.fortuneidn.com/news/bonardo/fortune-indonesia-40-under-40-dari-gibran-hingga-reza-rahadian	To my knowledge the publication has a reputation for editorial standards.	I haven't checked WP:RSP but one would assume that Fortune is reliable	Again it's about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/11/ac-ventures-announces-the-first-close-of-its-80-million-fund-for-indonesian-startups/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/30/indonesia-focused-ac-ventures-closes-oversubscribed-205m-third-fund/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement largely based on interviews with staff.	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/02/14/indonesias-ac-ventures-appoints-venture-capital-veteran-helen-wong-as-senior-advisor-and-venture-partner/	Press release aggregator	Press release aggregator	Another routine press announcement	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/helen-wong-ac-ventures-venture-partner	See nom	See nom	Bears a striking resemblence to press releases at the time and appears to be a routine press announcement.	✘ No
https://forbesasia100towatch.com/people/helen-wong/	Paid profile	Published with little to no editorial oversight	Brieft bio	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It looks like most of it is based on an interview and the subject's media prospectus with little in the way of independent analysis.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/13/waste4change-is-building-a-circular-economy-in-indonesia/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/19/with-37m-seed-round-maka-motors-begins-ev-pilot-on-indonesias-streets/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-leads-agritech-firm-koltiva	See nom	See nom	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://asiatechdaily.com/indonesian-vc-firm-convergence-ventures/	Blog	Blog	Not about the subject in question	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	See nom	See nom	Not much in the way of independent analysis or critical thought here.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	It's a national newspaper	It's a national newspaper	Doesn't appear to be about the subject in question.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	It's about data provided by the fund but not the actual fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	Looks like a PR whitewash and not independent journalism	? To my knowledge there's not been enough on-wiki discussion to reach a consensus on this source's reliability	Is something that's based on interviews and a press release with little to no independent coverage significant? I don't thinks so.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table and the overly-PRish tone in most sources, I'm not seeing notability. I can't find any sort of sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"DealStreet Asia" and fancily-named sites that just reprint PR items are about the extent of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the source analysis, nothing I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 9 December 2023 (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.