Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Ross Ventures

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ross Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated per IP userrequest: Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases. 2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by: UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy? New to wiki. Teddy012 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For good information on what is needed, see both the WP:golden rule and WP:Notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this fails to meet CORPDEPTH. The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.