Deletion of Pantera Capital (2nd nomination)

Comment: The WallStreetJournal and FT cites are enough to pass . Plus, it looks like there are lots of other RS's (just with a quick glace, TechCrunch and some legitimate books). {{cite web |title="Pantera Capital" -wikipedia - Google Search |url=https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Pantera+Capital%22+-wikipedia |website=www.google.com}}{{cite web |title="Pantera Capital" -wikipedia - Google Search |url=https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Pantera+Capital%22+-wikipedia |website=www.google.com}}{{cite web |title=Google Scholar |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Pantera+Capital%22 |website=scholar.google.com}} The article just needs to be developed further
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Motley Fool is an unreliable source and is being flagged up by the script. I have removed unreliable trash sources,  sources and other junk. Let's look at each reference in turn
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: Per . Article is good enough to pass , especially with reliable sources indicated by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:GNG)