User talk:Martinlehr

Welcome!

Hello, Martinlehr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Osage Partners, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Osage Partners


A tag has been placed on Osage Partners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to your email
Hi Martin, thanks for your email - I'll reply here, because then things are more open, and you can refer to this discussion if yoju want to go to deletion review (more of which later)

Let's have a look at the references the article had and why I believe that they are not adequate for the article:
 * 1) Osage Ventures (company website)
 * 2) * Not independent - it's the company's own website
 * 3) Darlin, Damon (March 12, 2011). "It Came From Their Lab. But How to Take It to the Bank?". The New York Times: Business Day.
 * 4) * I had high hopes for the NYT, but although this confirms the investment in Avid Radiopharmacueticals, and the Osage University Partners, it does not appeaer to me to add up to the "significant coverage" required by the notability criteria.
 * 5) Osage University Partners (company website)
 * 6) * Not independent - it's the company's own website
 * 7) Instamed (company website)
 * 8) * Not independent - it's the partner company's own website
 * 9) Proton Media (company website)
 * 10) * Not independent - it's the partner company's own website
 * 11) SevOne (company website)
 * 12) * Not independent - it's the partner company's own website
 * 13) Eli Lilly Acquires Avid
 * 14) * This is from Eli Lilly's website, and fails on several levels: it's a press release (so not independent), it makes no mention of Osage (so not relevant as a reference for the Osage article), and it's on a company's own website, so not independent
 * 15) Design Corp. Immune Design Corp. (company website)
 * 16) SolarBridge (company website)
 * 17) * Not independent - it's the partner company's own website

And the two other links:
 * 1) Field View Solutions June 14, 2011
 * 2) * This is from a press release issued by the companies involved, so not independent
 * 3) Mass High Tech, June 28, 2011
 * 4) * The mention of Osage is "backers North Bridge Venture Partners, Osage University Partners and Terawatt Ventures all joined in the new round as well" - not significant coverage, it's mainly based on a press release ("according to a release from MC10", "officials said in the release", "According to the release")

As you can see, before deletion I checked the references to see if they could justify saving the article from speedy deletion (even though no real assertion of significance or importance had been made - the nearest being that the company "manages $150 million in capital across several unique fund strategies" - if there had been suitable references, they could be used to add the assertion of importance or significance to the article)

None of the sources given met the criteria for sources - i.e. that they should be reliable and independent - all of them were either company websites (not independent) or press releases (ie from the company, so not independent).

Without quoting the entire email (I haven't got your permission to do so), I will respond to some other points you made:
 * 1) "we are featured and mentioned in numerous articles"
 * 2) * This does not make your company notable in and of itself, there must be reliable independent sources which show that you meet the notability criteria in your own right (see also the next point). Incidentally, I cannot see any other articles where you are mentioned (you were on the list of VC firms, but as the article is deleted, I have removed that entry, along with other firms with no article - but I didn't find any other mentions of your firm)
 * 3) "numerous of our peer institutions such as Bain Capital Ventures and Canaan Partners have Wikipages, which by association should mean that Osage Partners is a valid page."
 * 4) * No, companies (or people) are not notable by association (the phrase we use on Wikipedia is "Notability is not inherited". For example, if I were to be a notable person as far as Wikipedia was concerned, would that make my 1-year-old son notable in his own right? No, he'd have to meet the criteria for inclusion as himself, not because fate made him my son)
 * 5) "What Osage Partners does is rather unique - we invest in young startup companies that are lead by exceptional entrepreneurs that intend to change the world."
 * 6) * Well, first of all, this uniqueness was not mentioned in the article. However, it would not (in my view) be enough to have saved the article from deletion. Firstly, you can't be "rather unique" - there are no gradations of uniqueness, you either are unique (in which case, you would possibly be notable) or you are not unique - which is the case here. Most VC companies invest in young startup companies, most startup companies which are worth investing in are generally lead by "exceptional entrepreneurs" - the possible difference is that most of these entrepreneus intend to get very rich first and foremost, with the changing the world a secondary consideration.

Overall, I see no reason to restore the article, as I do not see (1) where a claim of importance or significance was made in the article; (2) I see nothing at reliable independent sources which would show that the company meets the notability guidelines for companies or the general notability guidelines.

If you feel that I was completely wrong here, and that the article should not have been deleted, as it did make a claim of importance or significance, please feel free to go to Deletion review and list the article Osage Partners there, so that other editors can comment on whether the deletion was correct or not. Please note that even if they decide I was wrong in this case, that does not mean that the article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - merely that another process other than Speedy deletion should be used (such as Proposal for deletion or an Articles for deletion discussion)

I am sure that you will be disappointed by this, but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself: "why do I want an article about our company?" - if it is as a promotional tool, or "to let people know what our company does", then you have the wrong idea about Wikipedia! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, just like any print encyclopedia. Ask yourself another question: would I expect the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta to have an entry on our company?

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)