Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantera Capital (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 no consensus. No clear consensus on whether the WSJ/FT sources pass WP:NCORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Pantera Capital
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing seems to have changed since this article got previously deleted. They still do not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. A before comes up empty and a review of the sources optimized in the article are mere announcements in unreliable sources, press releases, and self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP, no sigcov foundable, presented sources are self-published or close related ones CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep very prominent investment management business  Devoke  water  08:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Keep because they are prominent" is a damn weak deletion debate response. Do you have any reason for saying they are prominent? - Bri.public (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keeps are entirely non-persuasive, but further discussion shouldn't hurt.
 * Keep Agree with user:Devokewater, this is major venture capital firm specializing in crypto currency investments. There is enough coverage to justify a keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly delete. Only four of the article's refs are independant and (arguably) reliable: . None of these sources discuss Pantera in depth, just mention it in passing, per the classic language "the funding round included A, B, C, D and Pantera". The rest of the sources are either self-published, sketchy, or Coindesk (WP:RSP reminder: There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources.). If and  think that the firm is prominent or major, they should provide substantial coverage by independant and reliable sources.  JBchrch (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok I am moving to Keep, as and  have admirably lived up to their burden of proof and shown that there is significant coverage of this company in the FT and the WSJ. I will come back to the article at some point in the next week or two and, if still necessary, replace the current crappy sources by these good sources (and change the content accordingly). --JBchrch (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment They just got written up on Motley Fool, arguably a top 5 Financial publication. CEO also appear in an interview on Fool and mention of company in NASDAQ.com. techcrunch and Venturebeat are credible publication also they just got mentioned here. I have updated the article. Also a Google search brings up over 10 pages of results and more articles on them.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According a WP:RSN thread that I started back in February there is no clear consensus on the reliability of The Motley Fool. Also I am pretty sure that it's not a top 5 financial publication (see FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, The Economist, Forbes, HBR, Barrons, Businessweek, Marketwatch etc.).
 * The NASDAQ link is a reprint of the first Motley Fool interview you linked. So, in total, we have two interviews, both published by the same source, and on the same day (April 6). That is not significant coverage. Besides, the fact that the Motley Fool made two articles out of the same interview on the same day just goes to show how seriously they work...
 * Cointelegraph is not a reliable source according to the most recent WP:RSN thread on the subject . So the policy regarding Coindesk applies here as well. JBchrch (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Motley Fool, what I really meant to say that it's a Top 5 Stock Market specialized publication, the other ones you named like Forbes and Economist are more general financial publications. Regardless, with massive amount of coverage that this company has in Google news it passes WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of Coindesk being not reliable as its on this list here. But I don't see Coin Telegraph on it or on the link that you sent. Although I personally have seen very good articles on CoinDesk and feel it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but we are not discussing CoinDesk now. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I am not sure if having a profile on Bloomberg counts for anything, but they have this.Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Digging a bit more on this and found this Wall Street Journal article that appears in-depth and this one. I dont have paid membership so I cant read the whole thing. My argument with anyone having an article in WSJ is that it's the #1 financial publication, so if they cover you then you meet WP:GNG.
 * Digging a bit more on this and found this Wall Street Journal article that appears in-depth and this one. I dont have paid membership so I cant read the whole thing. My argument with anyone having an article in WSJ is that it's the #1 financial publication, so if they cover you then you meet WP:GNG.


 * Comment Due to newly discovered WSJ WSJ 1 WSJ 2 and Motley Fool articles I would like to invoke WP:HEYMANN.I have improved article with new sources. I am requesting nominator Celestina007 to review his nomination based on these new sources and Delete voters (CommanderWaterford ) to revisit again. also pinging JBchrch and RandomCanadian. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there are a couple of articles in the Financial Times, this hedge fund set up by ex Tiger Management alumni Devoke  water  08:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The Motley references fail WP:ORGIND as it is an interview with a company cofounder and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. The newly discovered WSJ WSJ 1 ref is an announcement of formation and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the references in this article are simply junk and explicitly fail WP:NCORP at one level or another.    scope_creep Talk  10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Expertwikiguy and Devokewater. I believe there is no WP:COI involved in improving the article. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - with any financial firm, especially those related to cryptocurrency, there are an abundance of blogs and semi-organized news sites that can generate a lot of Google results, giving the appearance of notability. But we need reliable sources independent of the subject with non-trivial coverage, and I'm not seeing that. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The WallStreetJournal and FT cites are enough to pass WP:GNG. Plus, it looks like there are lots of other RS's (just with a quick glace, TechCrunch and some legitimate books).  The article just needs to be developed further. Hocus00 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the WSJ and FT citations; I've copyedited the page to remove some things that were questionable (like claims about its position in the field being cited to the company's About page, lol). jp×g 17:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Motley Fool is an unreliable source and is being flagged up by the script. I have removed unreliable trash sources, WP:SPS sources and other junk. Let's look at each reference in turn.
 * What are NFT. Doesn't establish notability.
 * Fails WP:SIRS, it is not independent.
 * Cryptocurrency hedge funds see returns plunge in volatile times This is a routine announcement.
 * Crypto Startup Investor Pantera Capital Raises Hedge Fund This is routine announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Crypto hedge fund Pantera Capital files for massive $134 million raise. This is a dependent source, it is an interview. fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND.
 * Putting in a selection of raw search results is not the way to do it. You find stuff on everybody, but the closing admin usually ignores it. It is the quality of the sources, not the quantity. And linking to Google Scholar in this case is useless. It is not an academic article nor an academic. Unless the cited article has more than 100 citations and there is more than 10 of them, then they are not really valid.   scope_creep Talk  18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.