Deletion of Chiratae Ventures

Comment: WP:NCORP emphasizes the need for coverage about a subject (a company) to be a) Significant b) Independent c) Reliable d) Secondary. All of the news articles about this investment fund meet the above criteria. Now, specifically to the point on  - Corpdepth can be tested by running the articles against the listing of trivial coverage and proving that this is not trivial coverage. E.g. trivial coverage as  notes are 'simple listings or compilations', 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage', and 'brief or passing mentions'. You can see that the news items that have been highlighted are clearly not trivial at least based on above criteria. Specifically to the statement about this being a 'firm going about its business'. Absolutely. Almost all firms go about their business, and do not set out with a stated objective to be encyclopedic. But, 'going about their business' in turn can create value that will translate to notability, like this one. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Meets  and . These sourceshttps://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/railofy-raises-rs-7-crore-seed-funding-from-chiratae-ventures/77926116https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/cdc-commits-10-million-to-chiratae-11597968826953.html are fairly recent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NCORP)

Comment: I note you have not referred to the relevant guidelines for companies which is  and as such, your analysis completely missed the two vital sections of  -  which requires in-depth information on the company and (relevant to your sources)  which has this to say in relation to "Independent Content": '' Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' The template you are using is a generic GNG template. The livemint reference is based on "anonymous" sources and fails even as an RS. The indiatimes reference is based on an announcement, fails ORGIND. The thehindu reference is based on an interview with a company executive
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: I don't share the positive view of the sources discussed above, instead regarding these as announcement coverage which falls under the ''trivial coverage'' category at . My own searches find these and more of the same, including coverage in the past week of investment by :CDC Group in a fund, all of which confirms this as a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing |evidence of attained |encyclopaedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:CORPDEPTH||:WP:RS||:WP:NCORP)

Comment: Agree.  Meets WP;GNG and  due to recent sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Not a single reference cited meets the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based on company announcements, or announcements of their investments by partners, etc, or interviews, none of which meet . Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a substitute for a corporate website or the Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate a single reference which meets the criteria. Topic fails /GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)