Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Planet Capital


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Future Planet Capital

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

Venture capital fund doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle - I am not sure I agree, but I am new to this and an infrequent editor. However, from what I can see, the company has achieved a significant amount of mentions and references in reliable, independent secondary sources. While the organisation isn’t always the main subject, journalists appear to have found it relevant to mention them alongside the main subject of the article, due to the investment they put in. This has happened numerous times, which suggests some notability (perhaps in more financial circles). Media coverage - on the most part - doesn’t appear to be the result of marketing by the organisation itself, but marketing by the investment companies.  TimTibbets (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Tim. Which sources do you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Please note that the thresholds for articles about companies are higher than for other topics. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I look to your judgement on this, but I would say the Impact Investor article meets WP:CORPDEPTH, no? Some of the citations - Pensions and Investments & Growth Business - appear to be the result of marketing, but the likes of the Financial Times, The Times and South China Morning Post suggest the company has a reputation within the ‘impact investing’ community and in combination suggested, to me, legitimacy. TimTibbets (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth" and regurgitated PR and announcements are not "Independent Content". I can't find a single source that meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:13, 2 February 2023 (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.