Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardesta

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 Delete. The article clearly fails WP:NPOV, and it also fails WP:CORP: no substantial coverage by secondary sources of this firm, other than lists of investors in companies in its portfolio. - KrakatoaKatie 10:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ardesta

Ardesta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I must express my deep admiration for the article author, who took the trouble to contact OTRS to release the content of this article from copyright. Unfortunately, that doesn't justify its existence on Wikipedia per WP:N and WP:NPOV. I really feel sorry for the fellow, but rules are rules. YechielMan 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP. I don't see any substantial coverage of this company by secondary sources. Plenty of trivial mentions (article about Company X mentions that Ardesta is an investor in Company X), but that's about all I see as far as secondary sources go. Mwelch 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The reference to $100 million in capital caught my eye. I think the brief references in newspaper articles to the company's investments are non-trivial because they are dealing with non-trivial transactions: multi-million dollar investments in startups. This is coverage of a venture capital firm doing what it does: evaluating investment opportunities, investing in selected companies, and selling or abandoning some portfolio investments. --Eastmain 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmm, actually seems to me that that's exactly what makes it trivial. We're not talking about a secondary source writing about how Ardesta goes about making those investment/divestment decisions. It's simply incidental mentions in articles about other companies that a VC firm did what VC firms do: made an investment. There's nothing really special about it. $1 million is basically the barest, barest minimum that a VC firm is going to commit to any one investment. So having $100 million for the all of the firm's investments is by no means some wildly impressive figure. It's decent, but by comparison, the true "big boys" in the VC space manage $1 or $2 billion in funds. So I don't see what about that $100 million figure makes this company notable. Unless you're saying that the nature of what VC firms do makes pretty much every VC firm inherently notable. Mwelch 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very week keep as is, the article is advertising, talking in general terms about all the important things they do. The article needs to say something about what they have actually done that is important,-- which notable companies they have helped start, and so on. DGG 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — I'm concerned with the lack of WP:RS for non-trivial coverage as well. It's also troubling that this company keeps referring to itself as a leader. If it is a leader, and I do not think it is, some secondary source would say so. If such sources can be brought to bear, I would happily reconsider my "delete." JodyB _talk 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this business is notable, this article needs to be rewritten from scratch:
  . . . becoming a leader in bringing Small Technology products to the global marketplace.
  These revolutionary technologies improve existing products and enable the creation of new products. . .
  These relationships provide Ardesta with access to key intellectual property, the top specialists in the field, and an inside view as to the direction of the technology and industry.
  Gushing prose like this does not read like an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Has over 500 Google News Archive hits [1] and a couple of articles currently in Google News. [2]. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, as written, fails WP:CORP and seems a bit spammy. Needs a serious rewrite. Might have been weak keep, but it has been 4 days since nom, and nothing. --Evb-wiki 15:26, 23 June 2007 (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.