This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The list of companies funded on Seedrs may grow over time. A very long list would be unwieldy. Should we make the section "Top companies funded" or "Notable companies funded"? The idea is to keep the focus on companies that are notable enough to receive independent coverage.--Nowa (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
If they are included here then they will have to have independent sources, so there is no need to say that they are notable. Personally, I don't think the list is necessary and think we should only mention companies once they themselves meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. On the other hand, I don't see any harm in leaving the list in either. As far as mentioning funded companies only after they meet WP:Corp, I think that's a bit unrealistic. These are all new companies.--Nowa (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well someone/some people keep on adding to the list using crappy citations - a company's own blog or facebook will never be suitable sources. More generally, why should the article about Seedrs contain information about every company that they fund? Assuming they keep on funding companies into the future, we'll end up with a massive list, which shouldn't be the case per WP:IINFO. We need a way to distinguish the important events (i.e. those that go on to fund successful businesses) compared to ones which go on to fail. That is where independent, secondary sources come in as they tell us whether something is significant or not. SmartSE (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree. There should be some appropriate secondary reference to attest to the notability of a funded company in order for it to be listed. Perhaps the section should be "Notable companies funded"?--Nowa (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it will get unwieldy to have every startup listed here. I have revised the page to include (1) an up-to-date number of startups funded and amount funded and (2) details on only a sampling of startups for which there is independent verification. Trust this is acceptable to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.180.243 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=icon}
