Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Angels Network


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Space Angels Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm only seeing trivial or PR-like mentions: reports by the organisation; event participation; etc. Article has been extensively edited by an editor Special:Contributions/Chadcanderson who appears to be Chad C. Anderson, managing director of the org, whose article was subject to AfD at Articles for deletion/Chad Anderson (entrepreneur) and was closed as redirect to this article. I'm not convinced that the group is notable itself.

Note: I've significantly pruned the article recently of self-cited and / or promotional material; here's the version before I edited the article: July 2016 link. Sourcing is still questionable; for example, the The Tauri Group Report is a self-published source. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Leaning delete, WP:TOOSOON. I tracked down the mystery-meat analyst report (PDF) that's the main reference, it's not impressing me as a source for this article, apart from being a promotional work to sell the analyst's services; even though likely factually accurate, all mentions of Space Angels are passing. SpaceNews and BBC are RSes, but the things sourced to them are actually in quoted words from Chad Anderson. Too much sourcing to CrunchBase, a directory. The Forbes cite is to an actual staff piece and is good. Some of the refs are good. They might pass WP:CORP in not too long, but if this article is kept it'll need serious RS culling. (And this is after it already got one RS cull - that previous version is terrible) - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A lot a lot of mentions in RS but many of these are either trivial/tangential or quotes by a company member, , . I found one coverage which was significant but that too was an interview of Chad Anderson and doesn't qualify as an independent source. This company has some credible claims of significance but as of now I would say it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2016 (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.