Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital

Add links
From 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 no consensus. I would strongly suggest that the folks involved here examine the question of whether the material is better suited to an article on the founder of this company. Vanamonde (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Capital

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Toba 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)

Delete A promotional article on a run-of-the-mill VC firm. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a substitute for a corporate web page nor is it a Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a simple Google search shows this passes WP:GNG. An extra consideration for those who don't work with investor articles - Wikipedia is very weak on VC and private equity firms. They don't like the attention. Calling this promotional is incorrect - the firm likely doesn't want this article here. Why do you suppose there's no Vinnie Smith article, despite this coverage? [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] etc. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Tim, the very idea that firms don't want articles here is ironic given that recently some VCs complained in a newspaper in the UK that their articles were being deleted. It appears that many VC articles also rely on "inherited notability" - perhaps one of their partners is notable in their own right or perhaps the firm have invested in notable companies - but that doesn't translate to the VC company being notable themselves. Also, we have debated the criteria for notability for organizations and companies and unless enough people believe VC companies deserve special criteria, then we expect articles that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP to be available. None of those references you've selected meet the criteria for establishing notability. This Mercury News reference is based on an interview with a company officer and contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion (because the focus of the article is Vinny, not the company), fails WP:ORGIND. The OCR reference is also about Vinny. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The OCBJ reference is a profile on Vinny, Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. THe WSJ reference is .. about Vinny. (I'm seeing a pattern) Selling his house. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Business Insider UK reference is also about Vinny selling his house (you do realise this article isn't about Vinny, right?) and Toba gets mentioned in the context of "Venture capitalist Vinny Smith, founder of Toba Capital, has placed his riverfront estate in Oakley, Utah, on the market for $30 million." Fails everything but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERIT. The socaltech reference is based on a company announcement that one of its portfolio companies was acquired, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The bizjournals reference is another about Vinny selling his house. Toba gets mentioned in the context of Vinny Smith now runs Toba Capital, a venture capital firm in San Francisco and Newport Beach, but he is best known locally as the former chief executive and chairman of San Francisco-based Quest Software. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the OregonLive reference is based on a company announcement with interviews from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing 11:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that UK article you are talking about. I actually alerted two of the closing editors on their talk pages that they were "famous"! For Toba, I added some more media coverage about the company. Several sources say the founder is publicity shy, so the filings about investments are about as much coverage as you'll find. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is the article about the company or about Vinny Smith? All of the sources are about Smith with pasig mentions of the company. If Smith is notable, then by all means write an article about him, but not all of his ventures will inherit that notability. Doesn’t look like the company has really done anything notable other than get founded by a potentially notable person. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 23:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable enough. I thought someone else would have done one by now. I might still, but there's enough coverage for the company also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're a deletionist, and I'm an inclusionist, yet we've found consensus on more than a few articles. Nonetheless, discounting coverage in the The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and San Jose Mercury News as routine suggests you've set the bar so high that few companies would meet it. Also, the closing administrator will note that funding announcements, rather than being promotional, are to be expected, as that's what the company does as a venture capital company. The nominator has proposed that the largest venture capital company in Orange County, California, with $800M under investment, is run of the mill. I added their funding amount to the lede so there'd be no question of notability. I also just added news of two more deals, including one with drink company True, which just used some of the funding to buy the assets of defunct meal kit provider Chef'd. [[9]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tis a real pity that some editors feel the need to label themselves (and others) as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist". Makes me wonder why we bother to have policies and guidelines. HighKing 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policies can be useful guidelines also. A good one is WP:BEFORE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy. HighKing 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some more media coverage. I keep finding more the more I look. Going back to your point on policies, I don't think it's a pity that we approach these articles with a different perspective - that's what finding consensus is all about. After successfully debating famously heavy deletionists like SwisterTwister and Light2021 and saving many articles, I'm very comfortable with my judgement and instinct. In using the deletionist label, I was actually referring to K.e.coffman. We've interacted in the AfD forum more, and his delete votes are at about 80%. I just checked yours, and deletes are at 97.4%. I'm at about 40%. I didn't create the labels you dislike, but just looking at the numbers, they support how the labels are used.. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find stats can be misleading when taken out of context (plus that's an analysis of the latest 200 !votes). For example, it could be argued that the stat showing how often a !vote agreed with consensus to be the most relevant. I agreed with consensus 84.8% of the time (93.8% without considering No Consensus) and have !voted in 1,485 AfDs. Yours is 73.3% (84.9% without considering No Consensus) after !voting in 485 AfDs. There are a number of explanations but both our stats show a high degree of !voting according to the general consensus and therefore with an understanding of relevant policies/guidelines (your blip above excepted). Therefore despite my overwhelming "delete" !vote history and the labels you are attempting to affix, it may be simply that within the last 200 AfDs, the articles simply didn't meet the requirements for establishing notability. HighKing 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both have good track records. I just can’t figure out why you don’t have more keeps. 97% of the articles at AfD aren’t deletes. Is it possible you are just avoiding clear keeps, for some reason, thinking perhaps your vote isn’t needed? With this one, you can still withdraw your nomination - I can’t imagine any closer is going to delete an article about an almost Billion dollar company, and the largest one of its kind in one of the richest counties in the US. I can add more coverage but at some point want to move on. Out of curiousity, take a look at the handful of articles for which I voted delete yet were kept (pure keeps, not no consensus closes). I bet you’d probably agree with all my votes for those. Many of those closes still surprise me. Cheers, and see you in the AfD arena. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... without references that meet the criteria for establishing notability (according to policies and guidelines) then I can't see why I need to reconsider my !vote. You say that you can't see a closer deleting an article about an almost billion dollar company - but it has happened before and it will happen again simply because we rely on intellectually independent references for organizations/companies, not PRIMARY sources (or other sources that rely on PRIMARY sources). Even the $800million "under investment" number comes from a PRIMARY source. Also, I work nearly exclusively in AfDs relating to companies/organizations and the vast majority of those articles are spam and/or do not have intellectually-independent sources to establish notability. Like this one. :-) We'll lock horns again I'm sure... HighKing 18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No horn locking - it's all good - we're committed editors passionate about making the site better, just with different approaches. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's an $800M investment company, the largest venture capital company in Orange County, the sixth most populated county in the United States. The significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified meets WP:NCORP. Please state a policy-based opinion for deletion. The specific targeting of venture capital companies regardless of notability appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOLWUT? It now has notability based on population of surrounding area? Take it from someone who grew up near Sand Hill Road, $800m-$1b for a VC in 2018 is not that much. The fact that it gives away that much but still there's not much written about it attests to it not being that notable. Seems pretty clear all the coverage is about Vinny Smith so make an article about him. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading me wrong. Coverage notes that it's the largest VC in the entire county. It's a large county - not like the largest VC in South Dakota. Anything about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s borderline absurd. The location is irrelevant. Would it be less notable if it was the largest VC in New York County, San Mateo County, San Francisco County or Santa Clara County, all of which are smaller? And what dollar value would you require if it was in South Dakota but was an early stage investor in companies like Facebook or Google? If it truly is the largest VC in the county at that size, it may say more about the lack of VCs in the county than anything else. NonTastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 17:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Counties are an arbitrary division that mean nothing when it comes to businesses (besides extremely minute tax details) and even less when it comes to Wikipedia notability. VCs does not serve a local population – thus the location of its headquarters and being the largest VC in the county is completely irrelevant. That detail might be important in something like an article on a county library system or sheriff, not in an article on a VC company, but again all that matters here is significant coverage of the corporation itself. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The media felt this was notable enough to include in the coverage - and I'm just repeating it. But I agree that it can be subjective. Any thoughts about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage about Toba Capital in this article in The Mercury News titled "With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry" and this article in the Orange County Business Journal titled "Toba Rolls Ahead With String of Exits, IPO" to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The Mercury News article contains quotes from interviews with Toba founder Vinnnie Smith, but there is enough research from the journalist to establish notability:

    Former Quest chairman and CEO Vinny Smith, for his part, is plowing the fortune he reaped from the sale [of Quest Software to Michael Dell for $2.4 billion] into a new venture firm called Toba Capital.

    In the past few months, Toba has invested in more than a dozen enterprise software startups. On Tuesday, San Jose’s Quorum — a maker of data-recovery software — will become the latest addition to Smith’s portfolio, with an $11 million infusion.

    ...

    And Smith is spreading the wealth beyond the Bay Area. Though he’s recently opened a three-person San Francisco office, his team of software-executives-turned-investors also is deployed in New York, Texas, Minnesota and Southern California.

    ...

    Since getting back into the venture business, he’s attacked things with gusto. Last month, Toba led a $10 million investment in Palo Alto software maker WSO2; last week, Smith’s firm doled out $9 million for Codenvy, a San Francisco startup that helps developers build and test apps via the cloud.

    ...

    As for the firm’s name? It refers to the Toba Eruption, a volcanic explosion in Indonesia more than 70,000 years ago that some scientists believe led to a global winter that supercharged human evolution.

    Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So all the sources keep returning to Vinny Smith. Delete this and Create an article on Vinny Smith that doesn’t rely amlmost entirely on inherited notability from another, notable subject. But making investments in non-notable companies doesn’t make a company notable. Vinny Smith sounds like a good subject to write on. This company really done much of anything yet. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that making investments in non-notable companies doesn't make a company notable. Receiving significant coverage in reliable sources as has happened here does make a company notable. There is enough significant coverage about Toba Capital itself to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this week's Orange County Business Journal updated Toba's size - the company now has more than $1B invested in about 75 companies. I added the info to the article. The OCBJ article is unfortunately paywalled, but I can email a PDF of the article if anyone would like to read it. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure $1 billion is not all that much in the VC world but just sort of typical. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist is the charm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other comments here. In-depth coverage of company itself is missing. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - posting link showing comparison between nominated version and current version, for interested editors (and closers).[[10]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and even NCORP. Refs can have a focus on the CEO and still be considered significant coverage for the company, so long as the company is discussed at length, as occurs in the Mercury piece. From WP:NCORP: "an article on a ... CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the ... CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)". As Cunard noted, from WP:GNG: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pegnawl (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except NCORP also states 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. You can't just cherry pick bits of policies and guidelines that you like and skip bits that don't support your opinon (well, you obviously can, just don't be surprised when others point it out). What parts of the Mercury reference are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? HighKing 13:02, 16 August 2018 (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/Toba_Capital&oldid=1254438345"