Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helion Venture Partners (3rd 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 delete. Salvio ^giuliano 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helion Venture Partners (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)

The problem is notability (tagged since 2011). The refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage, and so is most of what can be found online.

I could find this seemingly-usable source. It has "opinion" in the URL, but it is a news piece with a byline; there is nothing egregious in the site’s "about" page and it is not listed at WP:RSP. Notwithstanding that, WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so one will not cut it. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging Cunard who contributed their analysis of sources to the 2015 AfD. I think the sources they pointed are either routine announcements or churnalism / interviews in disguise (i.e. articles written seemingly in the third-person but where the journalist merely repackaged what the primary source told them with no independent research or editorial choice).

  Because I pinged someone whose expected view is opposite to mine, I consider this to not be a breach of WP:CANVASS, but feel free to ping every participant in the 2015 AfD if you disagree. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mauritius. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Poorly referenced and fails to explain why the organisation is important. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are a lot of references out there. Unfortunately, none meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total lack of any assertion or evidence of notability per WP:NCORP. Funds are run of the mill, and are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The coverage is weak outside of Economic Times. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 7 February 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.