Talk:GGV Capital

nominated for deletion
Non-notable company; existing citations do not meet WP:RS, and there appears to be no significant news coverage that could be used to help this company meet WP:N. Flowanda | Talk 09:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to object that the Reuters ref prevented speedy deletion but then I looked at it and realised it was just a press release. I now agree that speedy is appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is clearly not a speedy delete, and I have removed the tag. The company is notable on the basis of its size and historical portfolio of companies which includes public companies and other notable articles on Wikipedia and the article certainly asserts notability which precludes a speedy deletion.  The article itself is factual and neutral and although the referencing is not inline, the notability is at least established based on the several notable third-party sources in this area.  If you want to improve the stub, I would encourage that and have suggested some areas above but do not see your push to eliminate the article as productive as this is one of the larger venture capital firms, with more than $1 billion under management. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided are trivial mentions or press releases. AltAssets is little more than a marketing/advertising vehicle that you've used to create almost all your articles. I've nominated the article for deletion. Flowanda | Talk 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)