Deletion of Fifth Wall Ventures

Comment: does anyone object to my putting a standard very short notice of the AfD discussion on the projects for inance, rivate Equity, and usiness? The AfD notice actually should have gone automatically to projects based on Talk page categories, but there seems to be a problem with this working. The projects for Company Articles and California articles should also have been notified automatically, based on the little I know about AfD alerts for projects added to Talk (I didn't add any of these myself.) The first two especially have worked extensively on what's proper for an article about a private equity firm
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP: F||WP: P||WP: B)

Comment: I have  as declared on the article. I am preparing an update, which will have many new sources, including a second fund (VCs raise multiple funds), more articles about the company, and about 20 investments they've made, each covered by reliable sources. I suggest editors give me 24 hours to post the proposed updates to see if this sways them (since I can't edit directly, I have to use a sandbox to do my work) In the interim, I will note the following
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: as I said earlier they can post the sources here (without a wall of text as per ). It is not what is written in the article that is a problem but its sourcing to show notability as per . The nomination says that there is not enough material to show notability and nothing about what is written. If after looking at the sources they are enough to sway the delete !voters then the modifications can be made as per dit Requests
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:PAIDTALK||WP:NCORP||WP:E)

Comment: A $200 million fund isn't large or unusual enough to be notable based on that, and most of the refs are just of their funding.  Based on my experience both on Wikipedia and in the tech industry, it would take something extraordinary for a fund to meet notability standards 2 years after being created, and I don't see that here.  No amount of coverage in the L.A. Business Journal or TechCrunch will meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: If it is improper for me to request some of the article creation fee for "unbiased support" then when Wikipedia uses the word "should not", supported by broad community consensus, this is a polite way of stating "don't". This is in reference to content in the lead of WP:COI: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|''"Also, COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but propose changes on article talk pages instead.''". The question or suggestion of an exemption to allow COI editing at AFD causes great consternation. As a volunteer I do not get paid to not go to work so I can study all the ways a paid editor, whose job oftentimes is to sit around and create articles that can include looking at all the various ways to nicely circumvent or otherwise "bend the rules" to get an articles "published" on Wikipedia, and to "fight" to keep the article on Wikipedia. I am amazed and will take a deep breath and repeat "|assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith". Whew! That might have worked. This whole "not getting into long drawn out interactions ''with those paid to do so'' is turning into just that. The place to discuss article changes would still, I think, belong on the article talk page following the acceptable practices and not at AFD. If edits are approved there then this can be mentioned here, so it can be checked, is how it generally works. Involved editors here should take caution in approving or making any edits on behalf of a paid editor. If this cannot take place in the timeline (with any extensions), then the process, in case of a delete consensus, would be an editor request for draftifying. There is then another process to see if the paid editor can then "get it right". I am trying to be fair just as other editors should that there is a strict set of "rules" concerning COI editing for a reason. This prevents corporate money from swaying the editorial process of Wikipedia. I read Cabify that is full of advertising type editing, including "according to the company", and was shocked that something of importance as a controversy (|balance) was buried within the article. It would take a lot of comments to convince me that paid editing was not involved when I saw ''"The murder of a young female costumer (sic) in Puebla, Mexico, by one of Cabify's drivers raises important questions about the credibility of any filtration process carried out by the company."'' tucked within in the description of the Cabify#Drivers|"Drivers" section. The end result is a well referenced puff advertising article for Cabify. I also read Identified (company) and some others that like to use TechCrunch, Forbes, and CrunchBase as sources to create articles. If a subject is notable then that definition would mean sources other than those above, general press releases, and interviews, that seems to specifically report on these type businesses, would have taken note and reported. If not then we have a circular set of sources, that are in some way involved, and a new article based on these sources that will not be |neutral thus preventing a |balanced article. These are part of the |"Five pillars" right? Paid editors, and the companies they "work for" should continually be on notice that Wikipedia does not operate on corporate funding, nor does the vast majority of editors, so to prevent |"advertising type articles" (part of what Wikipedia is not) the "rules" need to be "strict". If we start bending the WP:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines for COI editing then we Slippery slope|slide down the slope of "money runs everything". I do not think we need to give any more rope than allowed because money will find a way to get an article on Wikipedia no matter what so let's not make it any easier
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:ASSUME||WP:NEUTRAL||WP:BALANCE||WP:5P2||WP:NOT||WP:balance)

Comment: Good anti use-case for the new  standard
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: No it’s not, and personally I think it is not a case of , the coverage is absolutely routine, and asserts , as it is the same routine press coverage as other funds receive when paid crowd decide to put up an article on WP. Most of the venture capital funds are entirely generic in nature and use the same business models and software to identify investment vehicles. There is barely any difference between one fund and another. They are entirely generic. That is whole point of them. Once the business model is produced and found to be successful, it is duplicated everywhere. That’s is the reason why we have so many articles of the same type. And the same routine press coverage trumpets the news to enable people to find the fund. Same model and process every time.  What happened to doing the work, to see if they are actually different, instead of basing it on the crude measure of how much they have? It is the crudest measure possible. It always puzzles me why need to have these types of articles. We were supposed to be sort of learned society, and certainly policy and rules are written in that manner and the makeup of the editor crowd reflects that to some extent, but 10 years of attrition by the  crowd has worn us down
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:ORGIND||WP:PAID)

Comment: passes GNG with the Forbes and LA Times refs. I don't doubt these publishers received a hot tip and accompanying photo, but does that immediately put the refs in  limbo? I think not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: The evidence discussed above leads me to agree that the sources are not intellectually independent and information has been provided to the sources by company sources. There does not appear to be any intellectually independent references. I'm happy to revisit this decision if references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: does not meet new and improved ; sources are in passing or not intellectually independent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)