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 keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probitas Partners[edit]

Probitas Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable boutique firm with only 50 employees Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable firm with which I am familiar from my work in the private equity space working with the Private Equity Task Force. I just saved the article from being hastily speedily deleted but the nominating editor decided to list for AfD before even looking into the subject. Only 50 employees is not a basis for determining whether a company is notable - in fact I would argue for that type of firm 50 employees is sizable. Nevertheless, the notability should be based on the depth of coverage. This is a stub article which already has some notable references including the Wall Street Journal. My guess is that many additional references can be easily added over the next couple of days and that the notability can be well established.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found numerous mentions and hits right off the bat at WSJ.com, NYTimes.com and San Francisco Business Journal] as well as industry publications like PEHub and Buyouts. I think those establish notability - now the task is including the appropriate selection of those items to improve the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The number of employess is irrelevant. However, there is no indication either in the article or in this AfD discussion of notability. As I look at the article now (28 July) it has no inline citations, and the "References" listed are as follows:

  1. A link to a web page which does not mention Probitas partners
  2. Another link to a web page which does not mention Probitas partners
  3. A blog post the author of which asked someone from Probitas Partners, "for his firm’s take on the matter" being discussed on the blog
  4. A 3 sentence note from the New York Times telling us about a man who has joined Probitas Partners. It looks exactly like a press release.
  5. An article about Probitas Partners on a site describing itself as "A Public Forum for Private Equity". It is evidently written by Kelly DePonte, a partner in Probitas Partners. It is largely written in the first person, and at the end invites us to "contact me at kkd@probitaspartners.com".(My emphasis.)

None of these constitutes significant coverage by an independent source. If we exclude unreliable sources (blog posts, self-published sources) and links to pages which do not mention Probitas Partners at all, we are left with precisley one "reference": the one from the New York Times, which tells us precisely that the company has a new employee.

Urbanrenewal gives us some links and says "I think those establish notability". I have looked at all the links, and here are some typical examples of what I found:

  1. "Probitas Partners, a private equity fund placement agent, has opened an office in Hong Kong. It will be led by associate director Edwin Chang. PRESS RELEASE Probitas Partners ..."
  2. "Probitas Partners hires finance and admin officer ..."
  3. A fairly long article in which the only mention of Probitas Partners is the sentence "Private equity firms starting now typically have specific skills and operating experience to bring to small and midsized companies, said Kelly DePonte, a partner at Probitas Partners, a San Francisco firm that helps private equity and venture firms raise capital".

There is more of the same, but nothing different in character. If a company issues a press release every time they hire a new employee, open a new office, etc, they will soon manage to get a significant number of trivial mentions in the press. While a lot of fairly minor mentions may add up to significant coverage, a lot of trivial mentions like this don't. An article which in passing gives a quote from a member of the firm does not constitute significant coverage of the firm.

Zachlipton says "there are significant mentions in a number of other pubs". Well, if so then show them to us: so far nobody has done so.

Urbanrenewal says "My guess is that many additional references can be easily added over the next couple of days and that the notability can be well established". If so then I will happily change my mind, provided the references are significantly better than the ones we already have, but it remains to be seen whether Urbanrenewal's "guess" will be borne out. At present there is nothing that even remotely begins to approach Wikipedia's required standard for establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1.^ Shutdown Of Merrill's Fund Placement Biz Resonates. Reuters Buyouts, July 6 , 2009 -- Discusses Probitas as one of the two leading independent placement agents in private equity

3.^ Boeing Auctioning Off Venture Holdings. Private Equity Insider, March 4, 2005 -- A major transaction in the private equity secondary market in which probitas ran the auction from a noted industry publication

4.^ Scale Venture Partners closes $400M fund, BofA exits. San Francisco Business Times, March 7, 2007. -- Another major transaction in which probitas ran the sale process for Bank of America from a noted business publication

5.^ Shine Is Off Mega-Firms, LPs Say In Survey. Reuters Buyouts, March 17, 2008 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication

6.^ LPs Doubtful About Buyouts, Survey Says, Reuters Buyouts, April 2, 2007 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication

7.^ Lack of access to top funds is No. 1 LP concern, Reuters Venture Capital Journal, May 1, 2007 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication

+ The Private Equity Secondaries Market, A complete guide to its structure, operation and performance The Private Equity Secondaries Market, 2008 -- An industry publication in which Probitas was editor

+ DiNapoli’s Ban: A Placement Agent Responds. WSJ.com April 22, 2009 -- A WSJ profile of one of Probitas' execs talking about the Placement agent scandal in NY

+ Former UBS Executive Joins Probitas Partners New York Times Deal Book, April 9, 2007 -- AN article in NYTimes Deal Book discussing a major hire from UBS

+ In A World Of Reduced Appetites, Distressed Debt and Secondary Funds Come To The Fore. PE Hub, January 20th, 2009 -- An article by a probitas exec in an industry publication (doesn't itself establish notability) + Will Placement Agents Push Themselves right Out of a Job?. Reuters Buyouts, December 12, 2005 -- Article with prominent mention of Probitas

Plus there are literally dozens of incidental mentions in other articles, quotations of Probitas execs. I am not sure I understand the argument that a company can be notable enough for major publications but not for wikipedia. These are all reliable sources. The only question is what constitutes trivial coverage - per WP:CORP example of trivial coverage are "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." I have a hard time seeing how the coverage of this firm would be classified as being this trivial. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Reference number 3 is to a document containing half a dozen articles. One of these is about Boeing Auctioning Off Venture Holdings. In the course of the article the following sentence appears: "Boeing's broker, Probitas Partners, has already pitched the offering to about 50 firms according to market sources." That is the mention of Probitas.
  2. Unnumbered link to "Will Placement Agents Push Themselves right Out of a Job?" This article, as its title suggests, refers to placement agencies in general. The article gives quotes from representatives of a number of placement agencies, including Probitas.
So it goes on. Probitas manages to get a mention here, a mention there. Most of them could not by any stretch be regarded as coverage of Probitas. Now an example where Probitas is more central:
Reference number 6 says "Recent heady returns and record fundraising aside, investors in buyout funds take a markedly skeptical view of the industry and its potential for maintaining success, according to a survey conducted by Probitas Partners, the San Francisco placement agency." The article is about the findings of survey. Probitas produced the survey, but they are not the subject of the article. This is, as far as I can see, as near to significant independent coverage as we have among these references. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James I don't want to debate references with you and personally I think you have a view of depth of coverage that I honestly have never seen applied in the many AfDs I have been a part of. As you freely admit in these numerous articles Probitas is constantly mentioned and sourced and quoted as a leading placement agent which gets at the very heart of the firm's notability. How many non-notable firms are referenced / quoted / discussed / mentioned that frequently? And it is not even a trivial mention - you have an article about Boeing selling their private equity portfolio and Probitas is running the process - and that is a reference to provide back up for text in the article about large firms that Probitas has represented. If it were any investment bank this would be the mention in that kind of article. The articles about Probitas surveys are pretty straightforward - these are surveys that Probitas published that were picked up widely in the private equity industry garnering third party coverage of the firm.
What we are trying to do is establish either (1) this a NOTABLE firm - one with a prominent role, of real size that is important enough that if someone were to look them up they would find information rather than a blank spot in Wikipedia or (2) this is a small, insignificant, unimportant firm that is really only relevant to people associated with it and therefore it should be excluded from Wikipedia. The fact that there are so many places that the firm is mentioned, the fact that it is linked in with other WP articles helps give you a sense that this falls into category #1 and the references that are included help prove that out. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://searchwww.sec.gov/EDGARFSClient/jsp/EDGAR_MainAccess.jsp#topAnchor

you get about 50 hits. Some of these may be trivial but if you were doing research ( didn't type the term Probitas in but you found them while reading this documents derived from a different search criteria ) you may reasonably want to know who these people are ( hence notable to you as a researcher to the point where you may turn to an encyclopedia for more information). So, I guess I'd be inclined to keep but there would need to be more content than puffery copied from their own PR material. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get worked up. This is not even the same company so it is moot anyway. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I have no axe to grind here, other than I was attracted to this AfD because one of the principals is on my watchlist. I looked over the google hits, and once I got past the first few, which were essentially the same regurgitation of the companies "propaganda/marketing," I started to get into Reuters; Huffington Post (for what THAT's worth) ect. This article gives more information in one place than any of the single hits I checked out. The fact that a multi-national like Boeing is using the firm as a broker has undeniable interest, at least to me. Is this article we are discussing really much different from this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogent_Partners Food for thought/discussion, perhaps. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hamster Sandwich has asked, on the basis of a quick glance I would say that Cogent_Partners is probably no better than this article, but I would have to look into it more clearly. However, that is irrelevant: another article may be just as bad, but that does not justify keeping this one. On another point, the fact that Boeing uses this company as a broker may or may not be interesting, but saying so does not constitute substantial independent coverage. In fact nothing in the above "keep" comment really relates to Wikipedia's notability policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James - you keep saying the same thing to try to negate everyone's point that there are quite a few third party, reliable and -- although you keep trying to deny it material -- references to this company, which more importantly is actually a very well known company in this industry. In saying repeatedly that there is no material coverage you are missing the point that there really is quite a preponderance of references -- all from third party, verifiable sources -- about them. Some are more valuable for an article than others - not every item on the web needs to be in the article. There is now a collection of references to real articles that have clear mentions of this firm where - this is not some database listing, or incidental mention of where their office space is located - they are in-context and relevant to the content of the article. I have yet to hear a real reason why you think that the totality of all of these items don't add up to establishing notability and I would like you (if for no other reason so that all of us can learn) to explain very clearly what you see as the criteria that you are using to identify these plentiful references as trivial and non-substantial. I just find it funny that you negate every reference so forcefully: Firm's name referenced in the lead? Only because they published a survey that was newsworthy. Notable personnel hires in the NYTimes? They must have been slumming that day. Working on sizeable deals with big well known companies? Well they were only an adviser, not interesting to me. Solicited for opinions on a major scandal in New York? It is only an interview in the WSJ. I have read and written a lot of articles on WP and many of them have not had books written about them either. I typed in WP:JamesBWatson to see if these policies existed and didn't find them so please let me know what I am missing. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure why you choose to ridicule what I have said, and am not convinced that your manner is civil. I will not try to answer all of your points, but, since you ask, "Only because they published a survey that was newsworthy": how far is notability inherited? "They must have been slumming that day": I never said that, and I am not sure that I said anything that could reasonably be represented that way. If I did, please indicate exactly what. You wonder why I think "the totality of all of these items don't add up to establishing notability". Well, it is not always easy to assess to what extent a lot of minor references add up to the equivalent of a major reference. It does not seem to me that any one of the references constitutes substantial coverage, and I shall leave it to the closing admin to decide whether the total amount of coverage does so. Finally, you suggest that I "keep saying the same thing". The way I see it, a lot of new claims that there are good references have been made, and each time I have looked at them and found them less convincing than has been suggested. On each occasion I have tried to point out why the latest one seems to me less convincing than suggested. I have not said exactly the same thing each time, and if what I have said seems to be substantially the same then perhaps it is because the "new" points I have been answering have had substantially the same character each time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (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.
More