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. No consensus for a redirect SoWhy 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaunchCapital[edit]

LaunchCapital (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)

WP:PROMO Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 12:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the article can still be salvaged, does not seem promotion and the problem is a lack of research on my part. However, in the current version, there are numerous references to major publications. The firm invested in Snapchat, Spotify, Zagster (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/launchcapital#/entity) and that's a pretty big deal. Founder is a multibillionaire with her own wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Pritzker). (Sorry this my first article, love to hear more feedback on how to improve Jason33661 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Added a few more sources and changed up the article abit. Love to hear more ways to make it more wikipedia compliant Jason33661 —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG and WP:ISNOT. Sources are mostly directory listings or non-reliable or contain only trivial mentions of the article's subject. Rentier (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is substantial coverage in the Xconomy link (http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/01/20/launchcapital-opens-to-seed-startups-describes-unique-investment-approach/) which is not a trivial mention. The trivial mentions are used to cite the company's investments and history. Those are from reliable publications such as TechCrunch, Bostinno, Bloomberg along with Yale and Bentley University. Most of the sources are also not directory listings. Bloomberg is also not just a directory, they only create company profiles (https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=48999663) to those that are notable to the industry Jason33661 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the Xconomy article provides the kind of in-depth coverage that contributes to establishing notability. But it's only a single source - WP:GNG requires multiple sources, generally three independent sources are considered sufficient. Also, Xconomy seems to have a (multi-)regional focus, so an article there is not as strong indication of notability as national coverage would be. The Bloomberg profile is still a directory listing, so it should be given minimal weight when considering notability (per WP:CORPDEPTH), especially noting the big blue button "Request Profile Update" at the bottom of the page. Yes, Bloomberg exercises some kind of editorial control over these (so it could be used to verify information), but I'm against such sources contributing anything to notability. It's also telling that the only (as far as I know) substantial coverage is from 2009. LaunchCapital should perhaps be applauded for not buying coverage like many competitors do - you can have the Forbes + Huffington + Techcrunch combo for a fraction of a seed round.

Trivial mentions are OK to use as citations, but are excluded as sources of notability (again, WP:CORPDEPTH). Rentier (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... except the article still fails because it relies on company material and/or sources for facts and information, not to mention that the source is not independent since it goes on to disclose that LaunchCapital invested in xconomy's latest round of financing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It means that non-trivial independent coverage is non-existent. Rentier (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Karen Pritzker in lieu of deletion. I agree with Rentier (talk · contribs) that the Xconomy article is the only source that "provides the kind of in-depth coverage that contributes to establishing notability". I also agree that the Bloomberg listing cannot be used to establish notability because it is a directory listing. Since there is only one in-depth source, LaunchCapital does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  I recommend a selective merge to Karen Pritzker, the only co-founder of the company with a Wikipedia article, per WP:PRESERVE. Jason33661 (talk · contribs) worked hard writing this detailed article; some of the material can be preserved in Pritzker's article.

  There is no prejudice against undoing the redirect if more sources that provide significant coverage about LaunchCapital are found.

  Cunard (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the xconomy article mentioned above fails as an independent source since the article discloses the relationship (LaunchCapital participated in xconomy's latest round of financing). Fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Cunard. SmartSE (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A merge / redirect to Karen Pritzker would not be suitable as she's not predominantly known for this entity, and there are other founders as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2017 (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.