Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alta Ventures Mexico

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. Sandstein 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Ventures Mexico[edit]

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

Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG, WP:CORP - same reason as PROD; contested Chzz ► 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the five sources that include the U.S. State department and WallStreet Journal are not considered reliable and independent. This discussion should be ended and the article re-added to Wikipedia

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks established as wp:notable. Not sure why it was nominated. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on lack of coverage - check the refs. The WSJ [1] is a blog entry, not an article.

Another is the website of the company [2].

Another looks like a self-created publicity piece [3] (LAVCA, a not-for-profit membership organization dedicated to supporting the growth of the private equity and venture capital industry.

I listened to the 8-minute radio broadcast cited [4], and found it had about a 20-second mention of this org (around 04:45 in the clip).

The others are very much passing-mentions in articles that are not actually about this organization. Chzz ► 12:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the WSJ item wouldn't be valid because of it being a blog (please correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing on the website to suggest that such content is not backed up by the WSJ as their own), but other than that I could only find this one about the ACE final [5] (this exact article is also available from other sources, but I think it originates from Milenio), and this press release from the Inter-American Development Bank [6], later reported here [7]. The rest are just passing mentions from conferences and events that the founders have participated in - frankie (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [8], but that's the only reliable source I could find. Doubt if this article gets past start status. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the link to Dow Jones Financial Informations Services article. [9]. - marstorm (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.32.208 (talk) [reply]

Delete – insufficient evidence of notability; briefest of news mention and stuff not about them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2011 (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.