Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle 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. Time has been given for sufficient sources to be provided, and they have not been. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Ventures

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)

Fails NCORP, references are based on company announcements and PR and mentions, nothing with in-depth "Independent Content". The previous AfD was invaded by numerous socks and possible paid-editors, some who have only recently been detected. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous participants Oaktree b, Maduant, Morpho achilles, 4meter4, ArcticSnowWind, Alexandermcnabb, Horse Eye's Back, Dream Focus, Falcon Kirtaran.
Comment It would be helpful if folks try to discuss specific sources with a view to whether a source meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the Wall Street Journal is about the best one (but not very good), rest are all funding announcements or PR pieces. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a number of good quality sources cited (WSJ, Reuters, Business Standard India, Mint, Hindu Business Line, CNBC) in the dump-bin of 55 references - but they're all repeating company press releases, funding round announcements and so on. Something like 19 of the references repeat company announcements about funding rounds or closures. Another 22 are announcements related to Jungle Ventures funding for startups - pretty much what you'd expect a VC fund to be doing in fact. In short, it's all trivial coverage as defined in WP:NCORP and, as we are informed by the excellent WP:SERIESA, Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. As the nominator notes, the previous AfD was plagued by socks and dubious IPs that masked the pretty self-evident fact that this is not a notable enterprise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I clearly see that multiple references are good and reliable enough to back key investments, figures, activities, plans, exits, and so on mentioned in the article. The subject passes Wikipedia Notability (general notability guideline), in particular: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Based on the multiple references provided in the article which have been published by reliable media worldwide during the past ten years on various occasions I see the topic gained general notability and cannot be narrowed to a non-notable company article or that is was only covered by press-releases. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Tristana Wors, this is a company therefore the WP:NCORP guidelines also apply. Nobody has said the references aren't good and reliable enough to support the facts mentioned in the article but references used to support facts have a different standard to meet than references used to establish notability. As commented above, can you point to a reference which meets NCORP and point to any in-depth "Independent Content", thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Let's quote the rules:~~

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

Be completely independent of the article subject.

Meet the standard for being a reliable source.

Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.

Here is for example The Times of India source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/jungle-ventures-to-triple-its-investment-team-in-india/articleshow/94206344.cms

It is a reliable, independent, secondary source with significant (more than “brief mentions and routine announcements”) coverage.

Another one from Business Standard https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html :

It is independent, secondary, reliable, and with significant (overpassing a one-sentence mention or routine announcement) coverage.

Regarding the New York Times use case at wp:NCORP of evaluating the sources, the main key principle is that the coverage is significant if it more than "a single-sentence mention in an article about another company". At least both sources are the one, who pass four-criteria rule: significant, independent, reliable, secondary.

~~The same is with most of the sources in the article, including TechCrunch or the Wall Street Journal. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Response OK, you don't appear to understand the full requirement of "Independent" - so lets look a little closer at WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content"

"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

Your first source from the Economic Times gets all of its information from one of the founding partners. It says it right in the first sentence. There is no "Independent Content" in this article. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Your next source from Business Standard was published the day after the Company Press Release of the exact same title and with largely the same information. In addition, the source you've presented contains phrases such as "We continue to be focused" which shows it is simply regurgitating company info. This is an example of "Dependent Coverage" (material substantially based on press releases) and it also fails ORGIND.

We don't consider references which parrot company information or regurgitate PR as meeting NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a directory of venture capital firms and their investments. These kick off a ton of routine announcements, but despite the volume of sources in this article, the coverage is all dollars and cents, no impact. For example, the Times of India (Economic Times) article mentioned above, available through the Wikipedia proquest access, leads with "...founding partner Amit Anand told ET in an interview" and quotes the man throughout the rest of the article. Hardly independent; mostly the founder prognosticating in the newspaper about market conditions. FalconK (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:PROMOTIONAL. Also, despite the refbomb, doesn't seem to be notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that there is no coverage other than what the firm raises, buys, sells, etc. Fails WP:NCORP as a result. However, I would be hesitant to vote delete as there is coverage of the company, and I would think on that basis, at least some articles would have been written to analyse/cover the company in a significant way? If there are, I think it could be kept, but I would like to see if anyone can bring up such articles. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are still some questions about sources existing "out there".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per my previous vote on the 1-st nomination of this page. Despite apparent refbomb I see enough deep coverage media links sufficient for GNG and NCORP guidelines. --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) *:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jungle_Ventures I mean this nomination Morpho achilles (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Which references specifically? As per NCORP, *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, please link to the specific references you are referring to. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep but with an element of regret. It appears to be true that the sources are repeating information given to them by the company regarding funding. However, these are high quality sources, so we'd expect them to have done some due diligence on the truth of these claims (of course it is hard to be sure if they actually did). And they're not just short repeats of the amounts, they are fuller articles with biographies and quotes. I think the sources have therefore decided that the topic is notable and we have option but to do likewise. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2022 (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.