Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders Fund

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Founders Fund}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Founders Fund}})

Fails WP:NCORP. This article is an WP:ORGTRIV nightmare, all sources, even those published on generally reliable outlets, are announcements of funding rounds that this company has received, and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Founders_Fund&oldid=1250431471#History current History section] really makes that point clear. We cannot write an article about a company if all information available about them are about their funding rounds.

The WP:TECHCRUNCH fluff is looks really COI. At best this could be merged to Peter Thiel#Founders_Fund, since some sources do talk about this company's relationship with him [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/The-Founders-Fund-emerges-as-venture-capital-2-0-2543274.php][https://web.archive.org/web/20080205114014/http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-fi-founders18dec18,1,6840237.story?coll=la-headlines-business-invest]. The only times we have reliable sources actually discussing this company in some depth is when they are talking about Thiel's career. Badbluebus (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there's enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance, these WSJ articles talk about the firm's strategy in depth [https://www.wsj.com/articles/founders-fund-a-premier-venture-firm-in-transition-has-outsize-returns-11551214841] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiels-founders-fund-building-new-war-chest-in-strategy-shift-11571672563] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiels-founders-fund-makes-big-bet-on-bitcoin-1514917433], this piece in Axios talks about its internal operations [https://www.axios.com/2020/02/19/peter-thiel-founders-fund], this 2006 piece provides SIGCOV from early in its history [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/The-Founders-Fund-emerges-as-venture-capital-2-0-2543274.php], and there's plenty of coverage of its role in the SVB collapse [https://www.axios.com/2023/03/14/founders-fund-run-silicon-valley-bank] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/thiel-s-founders-fund-withdrew-millions-from-silicon-valley-bank]. There's also tons of RS coverage of deals it has worked on (e.g. [https://www.ft.com/content/6472a19d-0011-444f-a57a-3d11f143f291] [https://www.ft.com/content/dbda689a-d3a7-4441-8dec-93042ca619a9] [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/anduril-talks-new-funding-round-with-possible-28-billion-valuation-sources-say-2025-02-07/] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-14/peter-thiel-s-founders-fund-backs-election-betting-with-polymarket-funding]) and coverage of its funding rounds, some of which I think goes beyond the kind of routine announcements described by WP:ORGTRIV. A merge to Peter Thiel#Founders Fund would be a reasonable ATD, but I think this is a notable VC firm even beyond its association with Thiel. MCE89 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:: The sources you brought look good, although a good majority of them are discussing Founders Fund in relation to Peter Thiel. I'm on the side of merging this article to Thiel's page. Badbluebus (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There are a lot that talk about Thiel but they meet WP:CORPDEPTH as they are about the fund itself and discuss Peter Thiel briefly in relation to the fund. Of course every news organization is going to mention him as one of the founders despite him [https://www.vox.com/2017/12/6/16692284/lauren-gross-founders-fund-recode-100 not being the main person in charge] or even the [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/04/18/brian-singerman-founders-fund-power-player/ largest VC] there. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Plenty sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT such as [https://www.wsj.com/articles/founders-fund-a-premier-venture-firm-in-transition-has-outsize-returns-11551214841 The WSJ], [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/thiel-s-founders-fund-withdrew-millions-from-silicon-valley-bank Bloomberg], and [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-14/peter-thiel-s-founders-fund-backs-election-betting-with-polymarket-funding another Bloomberg]. Yes, you can find a lot that are more about Thiel, but there are enough to meet the threshold of WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as pointed out by others, there's adequate coverage per NCORP. As it's a fund, there's many sources that are fluff for NCORP, but that doesn't detract from those that aren't. Nom seems a bit overstated. Widefox; talk 21:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - based on assessment by @MCE89 there are enough sources to establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is one of the most important and influential venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. See this sample of additional WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV that stretches over several decades, about its influence. [https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/The-Founders-Fund-emerges-as-venture-capital-2-0-2543274.php] [https://www.theinformation.com/briefings/founders-fund-raises-5-billion-as-appetite-for-vc-deals-remains-robust] [https://www.vox.com/2014/3/5/11624234/founders-fund-raises-1-billion-in-fifth-fund] Longhornsg (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.