Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Ventures


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.  

The result was Delete All. The consensus is clear. Those firms that may ber actually notable can have new articles written by editors not in violation of WP:COI. If any such editor wants any of these articels userfied for reference i will provide it. DES (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

21 Ventures

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant COI by User:Danthony21 (presumably the David Anthony listed on 21 Ventures' management team), on 21 Ventures and its companies Dicklyon 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about private companies funded by 21 Ventures (Or their product), and all were created by Danthony21:


 * Addendum: You might as well throw in




 * another of 21 Ventures' investments, though this article is originally the work of, for which this constitutes his entire contribution to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete "A golden ring on a pig's nose" (Book of Proverbs) - the references don't ameliorate the fundamental WP:NPOV problem caused by the COI. Shalom Hello 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - pure spam. See WP:COIN. MER-C 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no claim of notability is made here, and there are multiple COI problems as noted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsalvagable POV due to COI. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to the substancial conflict of interest and the fact its simple SPAM, nor is suitable. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep for the main article, delete the others. The company probably is just notable enough. DGG 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what? The article's only refs are some press releases and a trade magazine announcement that clearly started out as a press release. Wikipedia doesn't really do faith-based notability. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Welcome to David Anthony's unsourced and unnotable walled garden. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep some, delete some:
 * 21 Ventures -- it meets our notability critieria by having an article written about it in the Jerusalem Post.
 * BioPetroClean appears non-notable
 * BioNanoMatrix has multiple articles in the Philadelphia Business Journal -- but is that publication notable? (The parent, American City Business Journals, has an article, but most of its papers do not -- this question has been a gray area in discussions of notability in other AfDs.) From skimming the first 100 Google search results, I'm guessing BioNanoMatrix may be notable.
 * Juice Wireless has articles in GigaOM, venturebeat.com, American Venture Magazine, Business Week (but just 2 paragraphs), Mobile Marketing Magazine, Wireless Week, and Xchange Magazine.
 * JuiceCaster is a Juice Wireless product and should be merged into Juice Wireless.
 * I did not have time to check out Orion. -- A. B. (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.