Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helion Venture Partners (2nd nomination)

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. No discussion since the third relist. Keep and delete !votes bring up good points, but there's no clear consensus at this time. Past two relisters appear to agree that the discussion was verging on no consensus before relisting and consensus has not developed since. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners (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)

no evidence of notability. A list of a companies investments is not an encycopedia article. The references, as would be expected,are mere notices about those investments, not substantial sources about the firm. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging past users RadioFan, Trivialist and Randykitty. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I believe there are enough RS. 24.114.78.27 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient reliable sources to meet notability criteria RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we have never kept funds' articles based on their investments, for which notability is not inherited anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient reliable sources and wikipedia is relied upon by Indian users to find resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.160.178 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability, sources are passing mentions or not reliable 73.138.114.150 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM by single-purpose account. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. Subject is not notable. Citobun (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Russell, Jon (2015-04-16). "Helion Venture Partners Raises New $300M Fund For Startups In India". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  2. KJ, Shashidhar (2015-04-23). "Helion Venture Partners raises $300 mn to invest in early, mid startups in India". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  3. Gupta, Bhawna (2015-04-17). "Helion on road to raise $300M in tech-focused VC fund; to back up to 25 Indian startups". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  4. Narasimhan, T E (2015-01-15). "Helion Venture Partners to float fourth fund". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  5. Gooptu, Biswarup (2012-08-31). "Helion Venture Partners in talks to sell stake in Amba Research". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  6. Nair, Radhika P (2012-03-22). "Helion Venture Partners closes $255 million fund". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2015-11-21. Retrieved 2015-11-21.

     The article notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Helion Venture Partners to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to The Economic Times, Helion Venture Partners in 2012 was "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management".

  In March 2012, the firm received significant coverage in The Economic Times for closing a $255 million fund. In August 2012, it received coverage during talks to sell its stake in Amba Research.

  In 2015, the firm received significant coverage about its fourth fund from TechCrunch, MediaNama, VCCircle, and Business Standard. The sustained coverage demonstrates that Helion Venture Partners passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and for sure this is SPAM. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo Researchers also - same case. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by "same case"? The two articles have no overlapping editors. The only similarity is that I participated in both discussions.

  Other than the portfolio list, the only text in the article is:

  How is this spam? This is neutrally written content.

  Cunard (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company. Eden's Apple (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Eden's Apple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The company has received significant coverage in TechCrunch, MediaNama, VCCircle, Business Standard, and The Economic Times.

  A 2012 article in The Economic Times called it "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management". This clearly establishes that Helion Venture Partners is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as per quite a few references following a brief Google search. However, the article should be restructured and a minor nuking done (if I may) to make the article encyclopedic. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was a close call, because some coverage does exist, as shown by the keep votes above. However, after looking through these, it seems to me that they are lists of investments, rather than substantive coverage of the company itself, and therefore do not count towards the substantive coverage needed to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is needs to be rewritten so badly I think it's affecting judgement of the article itself which is why I'm staying neutral here. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 05:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MurderByDeadcopy (talk · contribs), I don't think the article needed to be rewritten because it was neutrally written, but I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I wasn't referring to the POV of the article so much as my own POV when reading said article, however, you did actually improve the article enough to solve my initial poor reaction to the article. Kudos! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for reviewing the article. As long as no speedy deletion criteria apply, I think the article's quality should not be a factor in determining whether the article should be kept per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems, and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may be a weak keep, however, since I was on the fence and some of that had to do with the article lacking an encyclopedic structuring (until Cunard gave the article a better balance) I've decided to go with keep. Also, I hate being on the fence about anything!!! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cunard and I seem to have a basic disagreement, but I think it can be resolved. As I see it, there are many reasons for deletion besides notability. Blatant advertising is a speedy criterion--and not-blatent advertising is a violation of WP:NOT, and should therefore be deleted. Yes, it is possible to fix it: just as its possible to fix an article that's a copyvio, by rewriting it. But in both cases, if it isn't fixed, it must be removed.

The question now is 1)whether it is sufficiently fixed. I think it probably is, for Cunard does not what a proper article should be & I do not see myself questioning the work of an editor of his experience and skill. . and 2) whether the references actually do show notability. I continue to think they do not. Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements, not coverage in depth. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: My rewrite of the article has proven that Helion Venture Partners has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond "Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements".

  I discuss the company's history, its founders, its four funds, the sectors it focuses on, and its exit strategy for three of the companies it invested in.

  Cunard (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 6 December 2015 (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.