Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherpa Capital

Add links
Source: 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 keep. Consensus is that the company is notable, and overall, participants herein have not agreed with the nominator's view of the article being spam, the sources being public relations content, the article being a business listing, or the article violating WP:NOT. North America1000 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa Capital

Sherpa Capital (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)

Advertising for an article whose sources are literally only published and republished advertising, regardless of publication name or attention, because literally everything here actually goes into such specifics, only the company would ever say, such as the Fortune article itself now only goes to begin with its named investors and business partners then to its interviewed CEO quotes and finally with its named clients. My own searches have then found only PR, regardless of publication, so that alone seals the fate of this article, which is advertising to begin with. Note how literally every article listed always has the same consistency of supplying the same financials, and this isn't a coincidence when it's formatted so eloquently.

No genuine journalism would ever put that, unless it was company-supplied and with advertising motivations, and this article has everything to suggest this. Now, Shervin Pishevar may be notable, but the other, Scott Stanford, certainly seems to not be, and nor is this company since there's still such advertising blatancy. Even some of this, such as the listed NYT never actually mentions the company, but instead the founder, therefore not only is "Sherpa Capital has been known to seek out ideas" advertising, but it's simply shoehorning any attempts of ingenuity. Sure, we could consider merging this, but it would violate WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, because not only is Wikipedia not a business listing or company webhost, the contents here are exactly that, thus not mergeable. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. How is this different from other articles in Wikipedia about Venture capital firms of the United States? There are announcements that trigger newspaper articles when funds are opened, etc. Why would the information be expected to be different across media sources?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm confused, too =( I've been trying my best to improve at writing these and use other entires as models. I do not work for the company, nor do I have any vested interest. It is my goal to find notable start-ups, especially those that are founded by a woman, and the venture capitalists that support them. In particular, I thought Sherpa was cool because of their connection Hyperloop, and a notable female entrepreneur (Tina Sharkey) is connected to them. Please let me know what I can do better to improve. Thanks!(Estee Hand (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The more that I scan articles about venture capital organizations, the more that they are driven by activities that could be considered PR-driven - opening of funds, etc. I am not finding a difference in content in a lot of the articles to what is in Sherpa Capital.
It seems to make sense first to identify what would be a "good article", or at least a class A or B article, for a venture capital org as a model. I'm looking - and have posted a request for comments and input on model articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherpa Capital.
There are some great links at the top to find other sources to add to the article. (As an aside, it's funny that "Sherpa capital" also refers to Namche Bazaar). Then, it would make sense to look for content with the models in mind.
Are there any comments on this as an approach? Any examples of good or fairly good articles as examples?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are "start" level articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity in a worklist - a model is mentioned on that page - and I found this good article Apollo Global Management.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is modified to fit within the "model" section framework - and similar in nature to the "start" articles, is that sufficient? And, looking at the type of sources used in the good article? What that would seem to mean is: looking for sources for controversies or competitors. And, round out history, portfolio, scope areas, and key people, where possible.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to "How is this different from other..." comment by User:CaroleHenson - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CORPSPAM. This means we have more spam-like entries to purge, simply. That some survived for years is just a sad state of affairs that we are not cleaning up spam quickly enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More content has been added to the article that is clearly not PR generated content, such as the controversies over Hyperloop, which could adversely impact the organization's portfolio. There is also added content about their investments from sources that don't mention Pishevar. And, the article was reorganized based upon the WikiProject Private Equity's model format, in keeping with "start" articles created by the project, and a few sources were traded out for better sources, like those used in a good article - based upon the comments above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - An article that is overspecific with such PR materials such as its "portfolio", "key people" and "services" is advertising and is nothing else but that; simply because Other Articles Exist is not an explanation why we should accept this one, especially since the sources themselves are still in fact PR. There's no use in redirecting its founder to this article since he's not best known as anything else and both were clearly started as an advertising campaign, regardless of "potential notability". SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that 1) it made sense to base changes upon the model, start articles, and a GA article from the WikiProject for Private Equity. IMO - The portfolio section makes sense for an article about a venture capital firm and is a section in this good article Apollo Global Management - so for the moment I have made no changes there, the key people section is gone, there is no services section. 2) the changes addressed the concerns you mentioned when you posted the article. I don't notice any recognition for changes to address your concerns, like using sources that don't speak about Pishenor, and providing more balance.
    • There are a lot more sources out there, though, so more can be done. Can you help me understand what you think is needed to make this a viable article?
    • I have yet to hear anyone else say that this article should be deleted - but I also have not heard of anyone that hasn't worked on the article say that it should stay. It would be good for others to weigh in, whatever their vote may be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çomment'. Ignoring TechCrunch, which seems to publish entries about anytime someone sneezes in a startup, and less notable sites as well as mentions-in-passing, we are left with few entries from reputable, household-name journals like Fortune ([1], [2]) and WSJ ([3]). The nominator raises concerns about the quality of those. The first one is indeed not much better than a press release, but second one at least has the following sentences "Fortune has obtained certain documents related to the fundraise... Sherpa declined to comment on the documents." which does suggest at least a bit of critical thinking instead of parroting PR stuff. WSJ article is not open, so I cannot comment on it. The question is - is this company failing WP:NCORP? It is a tough call. The company is new, and most of the coverage is the usual spammy PR crap, but it does get something in Forbes and presumably WSJ. The entry is also not written by your usual paid COI SPAs, and therefore seems neutral, or even more negative than not due to a big controversy section. Ín the end, I will stay on the fence. SW, you know I share your views about those kind of entries, but I think it is better to go after many, many entries that are even more clearly failing NCORP. This one... so very borderline. We could leave it for a year or two, the odds are not bad it will get one or two more decent mentions that will make it less borderline as time goes on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding TechCrunch, I just removed it. The Fortune article that was also there covered the cited content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks good to have a NYT article in the reference lists--but reading it, is is only very peripherally about the company. This sort of distortion is to some extent the consequence of our own rules, which lay weight on the existence of sourcing, rather than on what the sourcing says. I think the string of these articles and the inconclusive nature of the debates over them has shown the impossibility of making a rational decision for articles on firms on the GNG -- the requirements for substantial and independent can be interpreted in either direction according to the desired result. The only rational basis for deciding is the importance of the company--in the financial world, that translates into money. The level I use for this sort of firm is $1 billion assets. (There wold need to be the usual exception where a firm is the object ofmajor news coverage about something significant--which does not include minor regulatory matters). We need a compromise such as we have afor schools, to provide a rough division between what we do and do not want to include. The rules we use for "notability" have so little relationship to ordinary language that it's time we stopped using the term at all. I propose we say what we mean, which is 'appropriateness for a WP article". Then we can proceed in a rational way to decide what is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous references from reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. GNG and WP:ORG are clearly satisfied, No policy or guideline backs up DGG's subjective "ONE BILLION DOLLARS!" criterion. Edison (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established via significant mentions in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established. I see 18 sources, a lot of them significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing when WP:NOT is still violated for being nothing else but a business listing. We cannot compromise with keeping an article as advertising with the exchange of simple sources, which clearly contain and consist of PR. WP:NOT explicitly states we are not a YellowPages or business webhost. What policy is there for "PR sources are enough"? SwisterTwister talk 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand this, because it seems like a charge that could be asserted pretty broadly.
How is this different than other articles about venture capital organizations? What does an acceptable article for a venture capital firm look like?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see sustained, significant coverage from WP:RS. That should be enough. SSTflyer 02:03, 9 December 2016 (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/Sherpa_Capital&oldid=1089520409"