Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Bussgang


 * 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 no consensus. Timtempleton put forward some potential sources to show notability, DGG showed book results were minimal to refute it, but there was no particular agreement or disagreement with these views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Bussgang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity piece by a likely COI editor, and part of a walled garden/directory related to Flybridge Capital Partners. Person appears not to be notable by our standards; being a blogger and having published one single book (no decent reviews are listed) does not make for notability. Internet hits in reliable sources do not discuss him outside of his job. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I am new to adding notes but don't you have to start somewhere? I am not sure I am adding this in the right place but Jeff Bussgang is one of the most well-known investors in Boston. Why does Mark Suster and Fred Wilson (financier) have accounts? They are all on the same level, widely recognized venture capitalists that are highly searched. I am unsure of why you would take this down when those investors of the same caliber and validity are shared. I am not a COI editor, I am not getting paid. This is not part of a walled garden or directory there is no need to promote Jeff Bussgang everybody interested already knows who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyArtichoke (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

— SmokeyArtichoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sure, but it's best to start with reliable secondary sources that indicate the person's notability. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - just as a reminder, Nick, we can Google you. I think some truthfulness about your connections to this company and to "DavidLorentz" might be in order. Blythwood (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The articles on Bussgang's partners, both very similar to this one, were both speedily deleted (WP:G7) today, and I have PROD'd Flybridge Capital Partners, though it might make more sense to add it to this AfD. It is possible for an organization or individual to be successful and even well-known without being notable. The article looks like a resume, and includes links to Bussgang's LinkedIn profile, various directory entries and blogs, and so on. But there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and that's what's needed. ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have made many mistakes in this process. I am very new to Wikipedia. Is there something I can do to fix this? Take down all profile pages, all links that may be considered "promotional." If a bunch of other people come in and edit it, does it stay live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyArtichoke (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are the Content Manager at Flybridge Capital Partners. This is a pretty heavy conflict of interest, and, along with the fact that yours is a Single-purpose account, creates a strong presumption that your main interest is to promote your employer, rather than build an encyclopedia. The article can be saved if someone can demonstrate that Bussgang is truly notable, by showing that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Having "a bunch of other people" edit the article doesn't make much of a difference, unless they can do this. If the "bunch of other people" turns out to be different accounts opened by you and other employees of Flybridge, it may make things worse.


 * Re your conflict of interest: please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and Paid-contribution disclosure and follow the rules. You say on the talk page that "I am a student at Northeastern University interested in investing/startups". Even if true, this is disingenuous if you work for Flybridge. ubiquity (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just doesn't seem convincing. Of the sources, many don't even mention him, just the company he works for with no description of his involvement. C14 doesn't mention either. Many assertions in the article are unsourced. I just feel that if Mr. Bussgang wants a webpage about himself the place for it is his personal website or that of his employer. Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I hunted down good sources that clearly demonstrate notability - they just need to be integrated. This Boston Magazine article lists Bussgang as one of Boston's 50 most powerful people . Here are Boston Globe, CNN Money and Boston Business Journal articles discussing Bussgang and Massachusetts' Global Entrepreneurs in Residence program, which was his brainchild.  Here's an interview in MIT's Entrepreneurship Review on Bussgang and his book .  Here's more coverage of Bussgang in the Boston Globe's beta Boston web site.  Here is an interview from the Tech in Boston podcast .  Plenty of good material to flush out his article there.  Here's a Boston Biotech Watch review of the book, and Wall Street Journal blog coverage of the book..   This page has good info on his role at the Harvard Business School, and at the bottom lists some of the notable Harvard Business School case studies of his roles at previous companies uPromise and Open Market.  Seems pretty notable to me.  Isn't one of the COI guidelines for good Wiki citizenship that whoever flags the article as such needs to post their specific edit concerns on the talk page?  I only see comments there from the original author.  This deletion discussion should be separate from the COI discussion.  These guidelines properly get people to focus on the edits, and not the editor and his/her motivation, or else our well-intentioned efforts here might accidentally block good info for the wrong reasons.Timtempleton (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep As the co-founder of the GEIR program, Jeff Bussgang has played and continues to play a key national role in immigration reform for entrepreneurs and recently debriefed the Obama administration on this topic. His model for helping foreign entrepreneurs successfully grow their business in the United States through university sponsorship, is now being scaled across the country. As a venture capitalist, some of Mr. Bussgang's investments have revolutionized their respective industries - such as Brontes and MongoDB. These successes along with his blog and his book, Mastering the VC Game - a staple read for many entrepreneurs, have propelled Bussgang as a thought leader in the VC community. Finally, as a lecturer at Harvard Business School, Mr. Bussgang has written a number of cases that highlight female protagonists in order to help correct the gender imbalance in the HBS case method. He is therefore regarded as one of the most forward thinking VC's in terms of supporting female entrepreneurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTolani (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep Jeff Bussgang is one of the most respected venture investors in the Boston area (with over 38K twitter followers https://twitter.com/bussgang) and a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School. His course Launching Tech Ventures, is consistently ranked amongst the top in the 2nd year (Elective Curriculum) rankings at HBS. The article merely states facts about Jeff and while it could have more details, I see no reason to remove it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia provides information about prominent investors such as Fred Wilson (USV), John Doerr (KPCB), Rich Miner (GV) amongst many others. I don't see how addition of Jeff's page is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines or its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparsh ag (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as there's still nothing suggesting the needed established independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Upon a review of available sources about the subject, he meets WP:BASIC, thus qualifying for a Wikipedia article. North America1000 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. His book, which was published by the business division on Penguin,   is only in about 200 libraries,which is on the low side for a popular business book.  The reviews are non-substantial. Furthermore the comments by the single purpose accounts above must be discounted; they would seem to represent a concerted effort of those who know him personally to keep the articles . Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an very  good reason for deletion, especially when the promotionalism is proven to come from a coi editor. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia   DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 12 June 2016 (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.