Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)


 * 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 of the debate was delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway. – Will (message me!) 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)


Nominated for CSD on grounds of non-notability. However, ther is a claim of notaiblity within the article. Please decide whether this indivdual is sufficiently important to warrant an article. The Land 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Mr. Wilson is a 'notable' venture capitalist, at least in the context of New York City's somewhat parochial venture investing community. Along with Jerry Colonna, he represents the United States' main divergence, in the VC industry, from the (useful but tedious) orthodoxies of Silicon Valley and Route 128. While it's likely that NYC will remain focused on the arts, the decision-making industries (consulting, law firms, advertising, investment banking, etc), the existence of a viable VC community in New York is important to balance those industries' narrow focus on human-only capital; Mr. Wilson and Mr. Colonna are indispensable to that cultural diversification. Whether that role is sufficient to merit 'notable' status by Wikipedia standards, I don't know -- but the point is, their roles are a little different, and a little more important, than examples of mere financial success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.87.147 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete Autobiographical article created to provide an accurate link to his own article from an article in which he was mentioned (see Talk:Fred Wilson (venture capitalist)). The wikilink in the article was directed to an article about a different Fred Wilson, but the link has since been removed...therefore, no need for this article. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bugwit. Non-notable and vanity. -- Kicking222 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The above statement is the first and only edit by 70.19.87.147. See this post on the subject's blog as to why this might be happening. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep him in! Fred is seen as a leader in the online world.  He has been one to spur and encourage innovation.  His impact to the world has been seen through the ongoing work he does in guiding the web and internet businesses.

Fred has 40,000 visitors to his blog and provides both entertainment and insights to his community of readers.

To compare Fred to many of the currently ‘approved’ individuals in Wikipedia, he dwarfs many in his overall impact and contribution to the internet and the world’s economy.

For example

Rick Griffin was a guy who made posters – he has a listing Ted Johnson- played was a back-up linebacker for the Patriots – he has a listing John Hanna – who designed a sailboat – he has a listing Issac Funk – He was a spelling formatter

I think the measurement system is out of whack. I don’t think these above listed people should be thrown out, but I do think Wiki today does not respect the business world and the contribution people have made to the country. What is the difference between starting a company and writing a book. Or funding a company and editing a book?

Now, I also think we need a place for personal bios on Wiki. There should be a Wikipedia that has everyone possible listed. Image the value in something like that. Now, that is social networking! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.94.82.54 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment The above post is the first edit by this IP user. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete -- Fred's enough of a character in the VC /Web community today that he is prominent enough to be included in Wikipedia. I actually learned something from reading his entry and it was useful to me. I think Bugwit's standard of relevancy is OK, and we certainly shouldn't have pages for all 300 mm Americans or 7 bn people on the globe, but in this case, as an avid Wikipedian, unaffiliated with this person but familiar with his work, I feel he has sufficient prominence and relevance to be included in Wikipedia. I do not believe Bugwit and other commenters are sufficiently familiar with Fred Wilson to make an informed judgment, though their diligence in keeping WP vanity free is certainly appreciated. Mcenedella 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Well I've had an account for years and have some editing and adding history. And I personally see no reason at all why Fred should not have a page. I think the arguments about whether he is of big enough stature or not ridiculous and not to the point of Wikipedia. He is referenced within a Wikipedia article, he is part of the story, he is background. An argument not to include him is an argument against completeness. Further, there is really no way to assess that anyone who is part of the story should not have a page. There are probably thousands of pages that have no reason to exist, but are not called to the attention of the editorial classes. I say this is a false discussion and we should let someone/anyone create a page for Fred and be done with it. Ivan007 13:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete -- I think that Fred is worth keeping here, there's so much information on so many minor players here, and Fred is plainly not a minor player. I think it's useful to have a page on Fred and it's not a vanity page Ninefish 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Bugwit, why does it matter whether posts are first edits? The top of the page clearly states that the outcome is "primarily determined by the quality of arguments".  Whether a poster is someone who has edited on Wikipedia in the past, or whether this debate has spurred them to enter the community doesn't seem to have much bearing on the quality of their arguments. darby 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I mention this only to try to ensure that this isn't happening. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Valid concern, but I think it is mitigated in this case. He never solicited people to comment against deletion, either explicitly or implicitly.  Given these circumstances, the quality of the discussion, and nature of his blog, I think it's safe to say that most of the new users are probably people who frequently use Wikipedia but have never felt strongly enough about anything to create an account, and are posting in good faith.  darby 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question -- When does this debate end? When does someone make the decision to either off the page or remove the debate tags from the page? Proales 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO, notability criteria are not met. Cygri 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be fair, the above edit is Cygri's first and only edit. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The motivation for the page's creation is irrelevant if the subject matter is notable. Thus grunt's rationale for deletion is flawed. Wilson actaully meets numerous criteria listed in WP:BIO, including

"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" - founding 2 successful venture firms is certainyl a recognized contribution in venture capital."Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field " - ditto. Isarig 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Aside from what he's accomplished he is an important business man who people need to go and meet. A page will be helpful for those people to get some background info. There are already categories like Category:Business_biography_stubs and Venture_capital which he falls in. Although, in fairness, if he is kept in then there should be articles about other prominent venture capitalists and there should be a concious effort to create these articles. --Mika 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Will make Wikipedia a great source for entrepreneurs.


 * Keep Fred is one of the most savvy, insightful entrepreneurs in the business and I feel his blog is miles ahead of most other venture capitalists.  He constantly writes about new innovations and technologies and is a must read for anyone who is interested in the emerging dynamics of the next generation of the Internet and of digital media.  He's been early in catching the popularity of the tagging movement and of social networking (i.e. by investing in del.icio.us and posting frequently about sites like Flickr before they became big) and comes across as amiable and willing to share his ideas.  Plus, 40,000 devoted viewers can't be wrong. Steve 204.64.223.35 14:44, 15 June 2006 (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.