Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alloy Ventures (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 delete. Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy 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)

A directory like listing on an unremarkable venture fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as "speedy keep" in 2010 because it was an apparent revenge nomination. However, the sourcing is not convincing. NCORP has been signficantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article sounds a tad promotional.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For being completely promotional, but if someone wanted to re-write it as just the facts it could fly. Seafox289 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most likely a clear-cut delete, given the tone and lack of RS, but I worry that the more aged firms will always struggle with WP:CORPDEPTH at AfD when users primarily do their WP:BEFORE due diligence on the web, rather than thumbing through old dusty stacks of RS in print. Just a thought. Pegnawl (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 12 June 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.