Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alumni Ventures


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Alumni Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No reliable sourcing found for the company, all are Forbes contributor pieces or blogs/news-releases. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Hampshire. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The March 2022 references covering the SEC fine are independent coverage; in particular the Observer item contains critical evaluation. Whether that is sufficient for WP:NCORP is another matter. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say The Boston Globe and the Observer citation have significant, independent, and reliable coverage. The Reuters citations is less in-depth but could possibly count. I also found this source in The Dartmouth which seems acceptable to me. Since it has 3 sources contributing to notability, I will vote Keep. Carpimaps (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Vote retracted per HighKing's analysis Carpimaps (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which require references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined. We just need two good quality independent sources that discusses the topic company in detail.
 * Here's how the references stack up against GNG/NCORP (leaving aside official/standard reporting by the company e.g. SEC filings and PRIMARY sources)
 * Pitchbook reference is neither significant nor in-depth as it is a mere mention in a table, fails SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH
 * Bezinga reference says it is sponsored content, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * TechCrunch reference is a puff piece that relies entirely on a company announcement (see also WP:TECHCRUNCH) - same regurgitation as seen in other articles on the same date such as this from Business Insider (marked as a Press Release) or this in FinsMes fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Buyout Insider and this from Reuters are all basically regurgitating this SEC announcement. Sources that primarily discuss an organization's illegal conduct fails WP:ILLCON for the purposes of establishing notability. Likewise, the article in The Observer a few days after the SEC announcement is simply explaining the SEC fines is easier-to-understand language and while it adds additional information about the names of funds, etc, for me it doesn't add enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This (archives) from Boston Globe is a good piece which, leaving aside the information provided by the founder and the company, also features opinions from the CEOs of various purported portfolio companies and universities. But for me, once you remove the regurgitated primary source material, it does not provide sufficient necessary detail or independent opinion/analysis. Fails ORGIND.
 * This from Union Leader relies entirely on information provided by company executives, fails ORGIND
 * The Dartmouth reference mentioned by above relies entirely on information provided by Laura Rippy of Green D Ventures, which is "under the umbrella Alumni Ventures Group". There is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
 * In summary, none of the mentioned references meet GNG/NCORP guidelines for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 13:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.