Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formation 8


 * 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 keep. 's rewrite of the article was not challenged. If any of the early "delete" !voters still disagree, a second AfD can be raised; I would rather than happened than this article continually sit with an AfD tag on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Formation 8

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence of notability -- the references are just routine announcements.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with deletion -- iantolee (who initially wrote this page)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist 1 1 1 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as easily looking around here found nothing but clearly labeled announcements, notices and all that, which can't be used as by WP:NPOV, WP:CORP and WP:N, so whether there's 20 or 40 of them, it's not significant. The differences between this and this are quite few, so it's not confident for notability, especially if it's simply an WP:Indiscriminate list. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - not substantive RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per . The sources are completely inadequate for either establishing notability or verifying claims.    Dr Strauss   talk   20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just added some new info. The firm was widely considered to be one of the most successful venture capital firms in Silicon Valley before abruptly dissolving in 2015, which might be why you didn't find info.  They were returning a shocking 95% rate of return to their funds. Wikipedia is very weak on VC articles, largely because many of them shun the spotlight.  I've done a couple of articles (Toba Capital, Silversmith Capital Partners) to fill this gap - let's not delete this one and take a step back. There's more work to be done to source the partners and where they went next - I didn't have time for that because I felt the clock was ticking on this. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to relist, given the new info I found? I see that nobody has changed their votes, despite this having been a near USD$1B hedge fund that was massively successful. Am I allowed to relist or am I blocked because I participated in the vote? TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Timtempleton's analysis. The firm received significant coverage in reliable sources in this 2013 article and this 2015 article from Fortune, this article from Business Insider, and this article from Reuters. The firm passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging deletion participants:, , , , to see if the coverage Cunard and I found changes their votes. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:50, 9 August 2017 (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.