Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launchpad LA

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. ✗plicit 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchpad LA

[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)

Contested PROD, appears to fail WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going through the sources on the page:

Source analysis
Source	Analysis	Conclusion
#1	not significant ("Suster also founded LaunchPad LA", end coverage).	✗
#2	dead link, not on the wayback machine.	✗
#3	note that this is a blog hosted by the NYT, not the NYT proper. Not reliable.	✗
#4	blog on medium dot com. Not reliable.	✗
#5	forbes contributor, not reliable.	✗
#6	own website, not independent.	✗
#7	A real source! But a local one.	~
#8	the noticeboard doesn't have a clear consensus on pando as a source. Dubious.	~
#9	techcrunch "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability".	✗
#10	another forbes contributor.	✗
#11	not significant ("went on [...] to become a partner at a tech accelerator, Launchpad LA", end coverage).	✗
#12	not independent ("customer stories" section)	✗
#13	another real but local source.	~
#14	plausibly real, local.	~
#15	blog and not independent.	✗
#16	business insider syndicated content "should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." this is syndicated from a medium blog. not reliable.	✗
#17	local and not significant ("I applied to LaunchpadLA").	✗
#18	business insider is dubiously reliable, and it's a passing mention anyway ("Incubated at the SoCal tech accelerator Launchpad LA")	✗
#19	Passing mention ("which was part of incubator Launchpad LA") in a dubiously reliable source.	✗
#20	Local source again, focused on the company they funded.	✗
#21	Not actually mentioned in this source.	✗
#22	passing mention ("came out of the accelerator program LaunchpadLA").	✗
#23	Not significant, reliable, or independent (podcast by someone whose company was funded)	✗

Overall: some local coverage. One source of uncertain reliability. Nothing else that contributes to notability. Doesn't qualify for WP:NCORP.— Moriwen (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoriwenI am not sure why you considered local sources 7, 13 and 14 not reliable. LA Business Journal is a respectable publication. It's like saying LA Times or NY Times are not reliable. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree they're reliable sources! But per WP:AUD, coverage in reliable local sources doesn't establish notability.— Moriwen (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualifying a local source in Los Angeles or New York is different from applying the same in Idaho Falls or Merrillville. We appear to have two reliable sources here (7 and 13 are the same publisher). ~Kvng (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 is ok, but is one source about Los Angeles startup funding significant coverage? Techzulu doesn't appear like mainstream newspaper and is primarily a list of "graduates". Like I said in my PROD, we already have articles on Mark Suster and Adam Lilling.

IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per the evaluation above sources 7, 13 and 14 are reliable sources. LA Business Journal is a notable publication. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in LA Business Journal and TechZulu. Additional coverage in other outlets. ~Kvng (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article intends to be a history of "incubator program", TechZulu would be a significant source if it were a list of companies funded by the program. The LA Business articles, describing the program among others, aren't sufficient significant coverage for WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from your previous statements that you find these sources insufficient. I disagree. Please stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you find my reply partially redundant but the burden is generally on the nominator to respond. I also found an article from Pando Daily and one that looks independent from Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that you have a burden to respond? ~Kvng (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles all mention this fund in passing. I'd put a brief mention in the articles for each founder and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 3 April 2024 (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.