Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummer Winblad Venture Partners


 * 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 keep. Consensus was that the additional sources presented prove notability and that the article should be retained. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hummer Winblad Venture Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single self-sourced reference. Couldn't find much more other than TV appearances of the founder in a WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, my own BEFORE turns up nothing that passes SIGCOV. Appears to be WP:CORPSPAM. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the test for notability DBlogger1970 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in late 1990s and early 2000s in NYT, LAT, WSJ, and so on. Added a few refs to article, search finds many more, not only the usual quotes and deal coverage, but profiles of company and founders. Notability doesn't expire. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - is the company still going? If it is, it hasn't done much lately. I know notability is not temporary, but any earlier notability looks borderline.  I might suggest merging with the Ann Winblad or John Hummer articles. He was an NBA player so his article might not fit as well.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The firm was widely covered in the 1990s for its technology-only investment strategy, then again in early 2000s for failing huge with early dotcoms and also the Napster fallout (which threatened the existence of the firm, see ). After some partner shuffles (e.g. ) it rebranded as HWVP and is still active, e.g. in the recent round of funding for Stackery . Bakazaka (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
 * Delete does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG per a review of available sources about the company. North America1000 00:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:CORPDEPTH as per the multiple independent reliable sources coverage as shown above by Cunard including rs book sources, newspaper sources, magazine articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:HEY persuasive sourcing added during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2018 (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.