Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khosla Ventures

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. Per AllyD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khosla Ventures

[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)

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Judy Huang and I work in marketing at Khosla Ventures. I received an email from "Get Your Wiki" advertising their services, looked at the page, and noticed the page was nominated for deletion shortly before the email was sent. And so, here I am.

I wanted to make a few comments:

Reliable sources state Khosla Ventures is notable. For example, The New York Times said Khosla Ventures is "one of the most prominent venture firms" and said here that Khosla is "one of the top venture capital firms investing in clean technology."
Khosla has more than 5x the assets under management mentioned in the notability guidelines from Wikiproject Private Equity at $5 billion as of 2017[1] (much more now).
There are many strong sources for general notability, such as this New York Times piece, this book chapter focused on Khosla and another venture firm, and other sources.
The current page has many poor sources, broken links, promotion/trivia, etc. and a controversy at the end that is about a different company. I would like to offer a proposed rewrite that would address this by summarizing good quality citations, like mainstream newspapers and a book.

Thank you in advance for letting me participate in the discussion. Hopefully my contributions are useful. Best regards. Mums3435 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Drafts The article is a mess and refbombed. Of the references I've read, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. But if Mums3435 wants to have a go at fixing it up and can, more importantly, find references that meet *both* WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, I say it makes sense to move it to draft. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination is by a banned sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sandstein:. I work for Khosla Ventures. The timing and content of emails I received from “Get Your Wiki” inferred they were the ones that nominated the page for deletion and were operating the now-banned CleanAmbassy account. The latest email I got from them also inferred they were – at the very least – monitoring this discussion (not sure if they have participated though). The apparent scheme is to nominate the page for deletion, then get hired to “save” it from being deleted. Not sure if this information helps in your investigation of covert Wikipedia manipulation. I noticed they are not yet listed at WP:PAIDLIST. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards. Mums3435 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close "No consensus" without prejudice against re-nomination: It seems to me that this is the only outcome which neutralises the risk of gaming by reputation management commerce. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this nom wholly without merit, and the subject clearly notable in light of the refs. Yes, the article could do with a once-over, to tidy up the content and citations, but that's no reason to kill it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2020 (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.