Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Capital

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Village Capital

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business, sourced only from PR items. Nothing found for sourcing in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Georgia (U.S. state), and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some WP:PRIMARY stuff but referencing is likely sufficient to support notability and quality in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indefensible, can you provide links to specific references (ideally pointing to para numbers too) that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think Bob Pattilo's article should not have been deleted, there might have been some coverage of this subject there as well. But coverage like this NextBillion article, Vox, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg. Like I said before there is some WP:PRIMARY material like quotes from the subject in the articles, but in my opinion the coverage is still independent and significant enough to support encyclopedic inclusion. For example the Vox article is not just regurgitating primary information from the subject, they are critiquing and providing their own analysis by saying things like "But I don’t think either is likely to happen." They are secondary at least from good sources which are considered reliable per WP:RSP, which should be enough. - Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Comments like the one you've highlighted is insufficient to meet ORGIND/CORPDEPTH in my opinion, it's only a sentence. I've assumed they're all WP:RS, etc, just looking specifically at NCORP criteria which I don't think they reach. HighKing 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those 4 are full articles on the subject though, not just a passing sentence. I think it should be enough, the referencing still has room for improvement but my view is that Wikipedia is not going to be able to meet the goal of having available "the sum of all knowledge" if the standard is excessively high. - Indefensible (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't look at the volume of articles or combine different articles together to form a whole. Take a look at WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the criteria. Can you point to a specific paragraph/section within any one of those four references where you can say that it meets NCORP? I've checked, in my opinion none do. Once you remove the information provided by the company, there's insufficient information remaining that you can say containg WP:CORPDEPTH WP:ORGIND "Independent Content". Whether the standard is "excessively high" or not is really an issue for consensus on guidelines. HighKing 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, as I wrote before if the standards are excessively high then Wikipedia cannot meet the goal in the vision statement. Excessive removal of information damages the encyclopedia. There is negative material like spam which should be removed, but not information like this. - Indefensible (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you're entitled to !vote however you like, just highlighting that your !vote is not in line with and goes against our guidelines. Your opinion is that this is information that enriches the encyclopedia. Consensus is that we've decided on guidelines in order to make such a decision, based on the existence of published in-depth "Independent Content" and not just regurgitated company-produced information. HighKing 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the coverage is critiquing the subject and cannot be said to just be "regurgitating" promotional material. The articles should be considered secondary, not primary (there is additional primary stuff out there which I did not cite). I do not see this article to be advertising or promoting the subject, just providing coverage in an objective manner which is helpful to readers. If the consensus headed to deletion, then I will request the draft to continue improving on it. - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to wilfully ignoring consensus agreed policy, something I notice you seem to doing in several other Afd's, or more accurately willfully misunderstanding policy in a way that indicates WP:CIR, to satisfy some nebulous concept that you state in your user page. The coverage isn't critiquing the subject in any depth or in manner. All of it is PR and can't seem to recognise it. You don't seem to understand why the WP:PROMO policy exists in the first place, yet your appear in dozens of Afds stating the sames kinds of non-argument that ignore this very policy. I think it is a WP:CIR issue. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

You seem to have a recent history of mistakes too from my observation and have been warned for behavior in the past. We can agree to disagree. - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. The references (those in reliable sources) in the article range from simple mentions-in-passing (fails CORPDEPTH) to executive profiles/interviews (fails ORGIND), nothing meets GNG/NCORP and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at the first two references blocks since the first block only had seven references in it. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. The references are stonkingly bad. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2023 (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.