Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitus Seed Fund


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Unitus Seed Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear advertising in which both WP:NOT applies and the fact we make no compromises at all with such blatant consistency of advertising and company involvements especially when everything here is simply formatted as their own company guide, with their own published and republished advertising, and the history blatantly shows it especially since everything that exists in publications is simply their own advertising yet again. SwisterTwister  talk  17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (though certainly needs work). I agree that this article is self-promotional, but this organization seems notable: there's a New York Times article (cited already) that talks extensively about this company, and some cursory additional searches reveal a Forbes article about its founders and the fact that Bill Gates is an investor.  That's just for starters.  It'd take no more than 20 minutes to bring this article to a happier, more NPOV place.  I'd be happy to help with that going forward, but it seems needless and counterproductive to delete.  --Vivisel (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First the Forbes is clearly hosted one of their "independent journalist and freelancing" websites, and there's also no inherited notability from Bill Gates investing, or else we would have an article for every single company a major person invested in, which is unbelievable high considering that what their jobs involve. The NYT is still too close of a business listing interview and that says something since it attempts to covertly list its own financials and business specifics. The main concerns here are WP:NOT which is a policy. SwisterTwister   talk  18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that re: the Forbes article? The author is a Forbes staff writer and per TFA, it appeared in the print edition.  Maybe I'm just missing it... Vivisel (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah Lauren Gensler is staff, not a freelancer. I don't know how could get that so wrong? Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:ORG with significant (full article) coverage by Forbes (linked above) and the New York Times (in article). Stickee (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the Forbes "staff" listed now, but still, we've established as it is that Forbes is, with time goes, becoming heavier and heavier with company-controlled PR known as churnalism; then, there's still the fact this company is still best known for being involved with Bill himself; thus that's not automatic inherited notability. WP:NOT takes importance here, which is policy. SwisterTwister   talk  05:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)




 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as, , , . Also, the Forbes article is written by a staff writer, and is a reliable source. North America1000 13:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * At the very least ,the article needs to be trimmed of each of their list of relatively minor projects. That sort of information belongs on their web site. But the purpose of GNG is being subverted here, because when used for this sort of article, it simply turns us into an amplifier of their own publicity campaign. The art of PR is to get journalist to write about you. Then WP follows, and repeats the same PR. GNG is built on the naive assumption that journalists report the things that are important. I don't think it was every true, really, and its time we outgrew it.   DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 18 December 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.