Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS Fund

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OS Fund

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article fails WP:ORGSIG 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copypasted from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not seeing much here outside few mentions in passing, press-releases and their rewrites. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the articles related to Bryan Johnson and his companies (Kernel, OS Fund, Braintree, Venmo) seem promotional in tone. I was the one who nominated this article. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, come on, "Co-founders on administrative leave after FBI raid!" Investment funds are generally boring, but I think the hijinks make this one notable. Bill Woodcock (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the IP who nominated is a nonsense enemy who came here 1 day requested deletion of multiple pages and had slept in peace. Clearly meets WP:GNG and others based on sources. 73.62.240.227 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those personal insults are uncalled for and add nothing to the discussion. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, and Fortune) concerning its investment activity. Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fund has been covered by several independent, reliable sources and is certainly on par with many other VC firms that have Wiki pages. (I did go through the article and try to neutralize some of the language.)BlueHorseshoe (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that venture capital is despised at AfD -- often with good reason -- but this seems to have some pretty significant coverage by independent outlets (especially the WSJ pieces). While there are some cringe sources (there's a Forbes contributor blog post, as well as a Medium article and a Crunchbase profile) and some dreck needs to be trimmed, there are enough good ones to support an article. Parenthetically, while doing some WP:BEFORE I found a Chicago Tribune piece and times.co.uk piece that didn't seem to be in the article. jp×g 06:16, 2 June 2021 (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.