Deletion of Space Angels Network

Comment: A lot a lot of mentions in RS but many of these are either trivial/tangential or quotes by a company member http://abcnews.go.com/Business/space-race-fueled-private-funds-ambitions-major-boost/story?id=39063879, http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/real-money-with-alivelshi/articles/2014/12/3/space-startups-aimtogetrichonemergingcommercialspaceindustry.html, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/bezos-announces-new-rocket-in-effort-to-match-rivals-in-orbit. I found http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-qa-space-investment-20160707-snap-story.html one coverage which was significant but that too was an interview of Chad Anderson and doesn't qualify as an independent source. This company has some credible claims of significance but as of now I would say it is  for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON. I tracked down the mystery-meat https://space.taurigroup.com/news/start-up-space.html analyst report (https://space.taurigroup.com/reports/Start_Up_Space.pdf PDF) that's the main reference, it's not impressing me as a source for this article, apart from being a promotional work to sell the analyst's services; even though likely factually accurate, all mentions of Space Angels are passing. SpaceNews and BBC are RSes, but the things sourced to them are actually in quoted words from Chad Anderson. Too much sourcing to CrunchBase, a directory. The Forbes cite is to an actual staff piece and is good. Some of the refs are good. They might pass  in not too long, but if this article is kept it'll need serious RS culling. (And this is after it already got one RS cull - that previous version is ''terrible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)