Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accel-KKR

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I am unimpressed with arguments which discuss an editor's "pass rate" at AfD, and would like not to see that happen again. An argument is evaluated on its own merits, not that of the person who makes it. That aside, the arguments which specifically evaluated the reliability and independence of the reference material used for this article showed it to be lacking in substantial coverage of this company in particular, and several "keep" arguments either did not refute this or discussed somewhat related topics rather than the company itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accel-KKR[edit]

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

Accel-KKR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - subject is sufficiently notable and has coverage from reliable sources including the WSJ. - Indefensible (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a 62% pass rate on Afd and have taken part in 39Afd. You don't know the policy and doubt you have even read it. scope_creepTalk 13:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like ad hominem and has nothing to do with the nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A first indication of significance: they have 14 billion dollars in assets. That's a pretty significant number for most people. I ran a Wikipedia Library search and came up with 150 citations. Most of these were purchases and sales of large stakes in technology companies.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the 70+ companies in which they have major investments at Talk:Accel-KKR#Portfolio as of 27 June 2023.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assets size don't count towards notability nor does number of investments. 14billion under managament is miniscule compared to the average high street bank. It is just another indicator of how small it is. scope_creepTalk
Accel-KKR doesn't just hold some stock; they make substantial investments and exercise control through Accel-KKR executives they place on company boards. Companies they partially own and control include: SugarCRM, Airship, Basware, Entersekt, FastSpring, Masabi, Ontraport, etc. These are not passively managed investments spread in small chunks of stock across many publicly traded companies. For a passively managed fund, $14 billion under management is indeed a much smaller sum; those passive funds are usually much less profitable and may be managed by a handful of people.
About those high street banks: Since Accel-KKR largely makes equity investments (there are some debt investments), it's more technically accurate to think of the 14 billion as the collective market capitalization of these companies and then compare that to the market caps of big banks in Britain and Ireland (the countries with "high streets"). (Note: the following numbers fluctuate daily). Royal Bank of Scotland's is certainly bigger: 19 billion[1]. NatWest Group's is 26 billion[2] and Lloyds Banking Group's is still higher. Then again, Accel-KKR is worth more than Virgin Money's 2.7 billion[3], the Bank of Ireland's 10.8, billion[4], and Allied Irish Banks' 11.1 billion[5]. Switzerland and Germany don't have "high streets" which may be why Credit Suisse's valued at just 3.6 billion[6] and even huge Deutsche Bank is only 50% more valuable than Accel-KKR at 21 billion[7].
As for true "high street" (i.e, retail banks), most of these have by now been subsumed into bigger British or global banks.
So $14 billion still buys a lot, whether it's big stakes in software companies or whole banks.
As for notability, we have the plethora of reliable sources noted elsewhere.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a paid editor? Are you paid to advocate for this. None of that is a criteria from proving notability, its all routine business operations and posting it up, is a complete waste of your time. We will go through the references this week. scope_creepTalk 18:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Scope creep, "Are you a paid editor?" - do you ask that of every editor you disagree with? Are you suggesting I am?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"None of that is a criteria from proving notability,". I don't disagree, I was responding to your assertions. I asserted notability based WP:RS. You brought up "high street banks" as a point of comparison; I just responded. You asserted that 14 billion under management was no big deal and I pointed out the big difference between passive and active portfolio management. As for adding the lists of companies to the article talk page -- kinda looks like article research and building. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not a paid editor. If I was a paid editor I would tell you. I've certainly thought about it in the past but gave up on the idea. The reasons I asked is due to your spurious non-arguments around investments and monies held that are completely routine line of business function and don't denote anything that is considered special or notable and are completly outside WP:NCORP, but looked like advocacy for somebody who is unconnected. Regarding the list of companies they invest in, per consensus it was decided into about 2018 they no longer suitable for wikipedia as they were considered promotional and removed around that. If they been added in by editors, then there is a problem. That is a clear sign of promotional editing or UPE. We will look at the references and compare them WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding the list of companies they invest in, per consensus it was decided into about 2018 they no longer suitable for wikipedia" -- is this rule in a guideline or policy somewhere? I haven't seen it but then we have a lot of guidelines.
"That is a clear sign of promotional editing or UPE" -- not necessarily.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 10:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the references today. scope_creepTalk 08:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted for this discussion:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Scope creep, here you go: since you raised the question of my commercial editing status above, here is the comprehensive history of my interactions with commercial editing since 2005 across all Wikimedia projects.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references:

A majority of these are press-releases that come from company information directly from the company website: [22] There is not single genuine secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS in these first two blocks. The article is typical of the type built in 2008-2009 that used any kind transitory source that happened to be there. There is even a Techchrunch source, which is dreadful. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that essentially no discussion occurred prior to the second relist, I think a further relist is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Despite the nom's evident intention to personally attack anyone who finds their arguments lacking, I nonetheless find their arguments lacking. Just a quick dip into Google Scholar gives me: a Private Equity Journal article with a two-page section on the company's partnership with McKinsey; a Private Equity Analyst article about an Accel-KKR structured capital fund (which includes the note A spokeswoman for Accel-KKR declined to comment, which is at least highly suggestive of independence); and several pages from an Against the Grain article on Accel-KKR's acquisition of an equity stake in HighWire. Newspaper coverage seems to be fairly rich as well, as A. B. has noted.
    Beyond that, while my time for this is limited, spot-checking the nom's analysis of sources suggests a disturbingly cavalier disregard for the facts. For example, the Techcrunch article is dismissed as non-independent due to being an interview, but in fact it was another portion of the article that relied on an interview with an unrelated CEO. (And Techcrunch itself is listed as "no consensus" on WP:RSP.) As to the bizjournals.com article, I am unable to locate any indicia that this is a press release or even sourced to one; the author appears to be a journalist of decent repute, and prior consensus on RSN seems to be that bizjournals.com is generally reliable. In addition, turning to the WSJ articles that the nom rejects as "press-release(s)", I can only report that an exact-phrase web search does not turn up the sort of matches that I would expect to find for a press release. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be awake so will reply as I came up on my watchlist as I was looking for another article, although I will doubt it was make a difference. As against the "Against the grain article " Here is the press-release for that Highwire press-release. The exact same content has been copied into the article. On the closing of the fund, an entirely routine operation for a private equity group, that raises funds for investment for your ref [23]. I think they are are on about 18th or 19th fund, but don't hold me to it. Each one gets a press-releases to inform its shareholders and interested investors. Here is a company new desk article, [24], and another press-release from a previous fund [25]. Regarding the Jstor document, when you look at the references 24-28, one of them is an interview making it non-independent, two of them are lifted from the company website, two of them are press-release related. Not an academic article and certainly not the most sulubrious sources. The idea the wsj doesn't take the advertisement dollar when it states clearly in its marketing schtick [26] " allows brands to align with our premium, paid content at scale" that is does, is egregious. The fact that reliable sources state they are reliable only works if you examine every reference. They are generally reliable, not perfectly reliable. There is only on paper like that and its AP News. The Wsj is quite far down the scale, if you care to look. scope_creepTalk 04:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Against the Grain, it's the exact same press release, but the third segment indicates they copied it from the HighWire side of things. Bit of a stretch to call it "several pages" as well, it's one and a half tops (besides being a press release). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that segment doesn't show up until a few pages later in the google scholar results though, it was on page 4 for me though easier to find in their archives. I totally sympathise with not wanting to spend an hour on BEFORE sifting the hundreds of results that are quite frankly appalling (or however long it takes for people who are more efficient than I am) but like, I'm not sure I understand the argument from the keep !voters? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ news article has been taken out the WP article for some reason , but the headline states "Goldman Takes Minority Stake in Accel-KKR ", here is the press-release it was taken from [27]. Its on multiple sites? What gives? The company has been producing 2 press-releases a month since both Accel and KKK joined togeher in 2010. Its all from that news desk.scope_creepTalk 04:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand removing stuff but why did you strip the article of its categories? - Indefensible (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Scope creep re-added the categories which they mistakenly removed before. I tried re-adding some material but was reverted for WP:PROMO despite it being well sourced and factual, there is a discussion now on the article's talk page for anyone interested. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the vast majority of references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. There is one reference mentioned above "Multi-Partner Venture Alliances" which I believe meets NCORP criteria as it contains sufficient independent analysis on the alliance between the topic company and McKinsey. I've also seen some reference to a list produced by HEC-DowJones but I cannot ascertain whether there is any "Independent Content" as it appears to be a ranking based on information on investments provided by the company. None of the other references meet the criteria and I'm unable to find anything that does. Happy to reconsider any other references if anybody turns up something. HighKing++ 20:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment + Question I fail to understand why people are removing the "subscription" and "registration" metadata for citations. I believe this is quite important for verifiability by readers. For instance the Financial Times article by Richard Waters is clearly behind a paywall and provides no clue as to content but for the title; the author is not even exposed in the available content. Am I missing something about citation style that I should know about? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the subscription tags on the refs. That is not the main issue here, those are considered reliable sources and getting around the paywall to access the information is not hard. They should not be removed on that basis. - Indefensible (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found that getting around the paywalls is not possible in many cases. Maybe I'm just not a skilled enough safecracker, though :-) . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity advising them of this discussion and asking for their advice, pro or con. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no there there. More specifically, I don't see any claim of notability separate from Accel (company) and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:34, 10 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accel-KKR&oldid=1164939703"