Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Jurvetson


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Jurvetson
Nominator 67.181.45.197 says, "Not notable, looks more like business advertising than a encyclopedic article". I abstain. NatusRoma | Talk 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Steve Jurvetson is perhaps one of the 10 (5?) most influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists alive today and is pretty clearly notable if you search in business publications. The article could stand improvement but this is a Keep to my way of thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment while I appreciate the apparent insight, I think documentation of Jurvetson's notability in the article is more important than making the argument in the afd. I am especially annoyed with the comment he's looking for investments, which makes the article sound like an RFP, or advertisement.  Tychocat 12:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nod. If the article doesn't get fixed, userify it somewhere then if consensus is delete, I'm thinking a really bad article is NOT better than no article. this one isn't the worst out there though but ya. (as a note, any good VC is always looking for investments so saying so adds nothing to the article anyway) ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. --Ezeu 14:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it quite odd that he would be considered a "non-notable" considering he is an extremely well known businessman. I agree that it should be cleaned up however. ExRat 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'an extremely well known businessman' is quite a statement, don't you think? That makes me think of Larry Ellison, Sandy Weill, Henry Paulson or Dean Kaman, not 'Steve Jurvetson'.  Honestly, who the hell is Steve Jurvetson??? Desertsky85451 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Try Google.com - non-notables don't usually register 53 pages of exact search results. ExRat 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You said 'well known'. Well known is different that notable.  I did not dispute his notability; I merely pointed out that he is not well-known in any way, shape or form. Desertsky85451 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I knew who he was though. Apparently 53 pages of other people knew who he was as well. ExRat 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll I'm very proud to have had this discusion with one of the really cool 54 people who knows of the amazing and brilliant Steve Jurveston, Venturer of Capital ;)Desertsky85451 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I find Jurvetson neither "amazing" or "brilliant". I was simply saying that I disagree with the idea that he is "not well-known in any way, shape or form". There is no need to be snarky. My point was, within the realm of business, he is rather well known. And it was 53 pages - not 53 single people. ExRat 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. Jurvetson has not merely been on two-bit magazines. He was recently honored as "The Valley's Sharpest VC" on the cover of Business 2.0 and chosen by the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner as one of "the ten people expected to have the greatest impact on the Bay Area in the early part of the 21st Century." He was profiled in the USAToday, New York Times Magazine and featured on the cover of Worth Magazine and Fortune Magazines. In the world of business, that is "rather well known". ExRat 00:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Jurvetson is just one of thousands of second string VCs crawling the Valley. If he's not with Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia then he's not notable.--GaeusOctavius 07:29, 25 July 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.