Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel CoFund


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Angel CoFund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete looks like non-notable corporate spam. Sourcing is WP:SPIP and fails the new and improved WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Being government-backed, it certainly isn't what I'd consider run of the mill. Scholarly articles [1 ] [2 ] discuss the fund at length; easy to miss since they fully spell out "Angel Co-Investment Fund," but given the descriptions inline it is the same fund. Pegnawl (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲 水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC) & in light of the scholarly articles I tracked down above, will you keep your votes as delete or change? Happy to update the entry to include these refs, but would rather not put in the effort if a deletion is pending. Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to keep corporate spam based on an scholarly source that has a total of 7 citations. In other words, the academic community doesn’t think that highly of your source. My vote remains to delete with fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I only provided the first two scholarly articles I found, with 7 and 17 citations respectively. I'm very interested in your metrics for deducing that the academic community doesn't care about these papers; there were others, but you're right, # of citations is lacking, as compared to... Well, that's the thing. What is the baseline for this field? A super generic search on the same topic doesn't show a plethora of citations for any of the results. My go-to is to judge # of citations by release date, authors (in this case appears to be a power couple from Middlesex), journal reputability, and the reputability of author(s)/journal(s) the citations are coming from.


 * Appreciate your thoughts if you care to expand. Pegnawl (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seven citations for a paper is very low. Here is a semi-randomly selected paper from notable academics in business. Google lists 183 citations. 7 and 17 citations is pretty low in most disciplines. Also, to be frank, while this is clear that it doesn't meet NCORP, I don't really care if it does: it is still a WP:NOTSPAM fail which makes passing WP:N impossible, regardless of the sourcing. This article also just happens to have crap sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for humoring me! While I will note that the paper you provided as example has over 30 years on the others, I do understand your perspective, and am appreciative of the effort. Pegnawl (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; the sources offered at this AfD are not convincing. Being government-back is not a guarantee of notability, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pardon my slowness, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rejection of the scholarly refs. Per WP:NCORP, listed under "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" is "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization." Can I ask, in what way are the scholarly articles cited above not convincing? Same/similar thought process to TonyBallioni? Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.