Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alta Ventures Mexico (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.  MBisanz  talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Alta Ventures Mexico
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for WP:CORP. Has some links but trivial coverage or mentions fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:gng as per Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal PortlandOregon97217. It is also mentioned here and here here (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)-- User no longer exists on Wikipedia and and has vanished.
 * Its a Bloomberg press release re-post (common practice). Key is the wording "today announced..." and evidenced by the signature at the bottom "Contact: Alta Ventures Mexico, Justin Wright...". This is a primary source which is not independant and sources such as Press releases, rutine notices and announcements of mergers or sales of parts of the business all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The WSJ link is a blog post about "Paul Ahlstrom" and his departure from VSpring. Departure of personnel, and incidental mentions are not significant and fail both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- To quote the GNG " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]". The WSJ article offers more than trivial coverage of this organization. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)-- User no longer exists on Wikipedia and and has vanished.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete I don't think any of the sources cited are sufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Hut 8.5 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I !voted to delete on the first AFD, but even then the WSJ article and this one from Milenio provided enough of what is expected by the GNG to at least suspect that the subject could become notable, and I think that the addition of the Techcrunch article is enough to push it over the line — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Milenio has them in a "list of finalists" of 12 other companies. WP:CORPDEPTH is fairly clear that entries that;.."inclusion in lists of similar organizations" do not establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Milenio article is about Alta Ventures because they made it to the finals, not merely a list that just happens to include them, which could be the case for the finalists announcement itself. Also, it's not just a list: it may not be a major award but it isn't trivial either, and being a finalist carries a little weight. I could agree that it's not a supersource, but we can't just dismiss it simply because it fits a generic pattern. All these sources are independent, and Techcrunch and WSJ at least provide significant coverage; they allow us to see how the subject is becoming notable (in both the common sense and WP's sense of the word), and they also provide enough content so that no original research is required to build an article.
 * I was able to find some additional sources that provide significant coverage    (although I'm on the fence on whether pulsosocial.com meets WP:RS). Also note the many hits that reproduce or reference the $70MD fund announcement ("possibly the largest such VC fund in Mexico’s history" ), and the company and/or its founders get mentioned as relevant players in articles discussing VC initiatives in Latin America      — Frankie (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - These are only supposed to be relisted a maximum of 3 times, please make a call. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a delete for me - such coverage as there is doesn't seem significant in the context of encyclopedic notability.  nonsense  ferret  01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable company. Werieth (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears that the Dow Jones article, Techcrunch article , both WSJ articles , and three Gigaom articles   with a mention here provide enough significant coverage to meet the following guidelines of the GNG as follows, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Additional notable news includes the IBM developerWorks interview  and main stream Mexico press   mentioned above. Additional qualifying news articles from notable Mexico publications require a log in to access the articles. Alta Ventures has preserved these articles in PDF format on their website. The GNG says: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." The following articles published in El Norte meet both of these requirements. The cover article in the business section of El Norte  alone should qualify as significant coverage. The other three articles mention Alta Ventures and its programs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.61.189 (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — 76.21.61.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC).
 * "Paul Ahlstrom" and his departure from VSpring, and incidental mentions are not significant and fail both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The foundations are there for some probable notability in the future, and to a certain extent the idea of a venture capital firm operating in Mexico is a novel one. But in general, after having gone over all the sources in the article I feel that we are lacking more in-depth coverage of the company itself, instead of generally of the state of that industry in Mexico. The mentions by Gigaom and TechCrunch are at best routine, since they'll publish articles on anything with the letters 'VC' in them, and the rest of the coverage I'm seeing is a mix of press releases and non-reliable sources doing very superficial coverage of the founder(s). I agree with the nominator that this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The organization is in a new VC industry and has in a short amount of time made significant achievements and received sufficient notable coverage to merit creating and sustaining a page. The company coverage both from US and Mexico sources gives it WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:TOOSOON requirements do not state that a company be establish for any length of time only that topics and sources exist. I see no current mention of press releases on the company page only independent articles from CNN, IBM, Forbes, TechCrunch, Gigaom and DowJones and Mexico press which collectively meet and satisfy the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.186 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — 63.199.242.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.