Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owl Ventures

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owl Ventures[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill venture capital firm. Article appears to be undisclosed paid editing. Author was asked on 9 February about conflict of interest and has not answered, but is continuing to edit the article.

Previous version was deleted as G11 and G12. This version has twice been tagged by reviewers as G11 and G12, and once as UPE, but author has twice removed the tags: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owl_Ventures&type=revision&diff=1005793697&oldid=1005283452&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owl_Ventures&type=revision&diff=1004142333&oldid=1001831188&diffmode=source

(Yes, we know that the author isn't supposed to do that. I was already writing this AFD when I found those actions in the history. So we are at AFD rather than CSD.)

Article is both in article space and in draft space.

Article has 12 references, but none of them are independent significant coverage.

Note number		Significant coverage
1	TechCrunch press release	No
2	Client newsletter	No
3	BusinessJournals client press release	No
4	TechCrunch press release	No
5	TechCrunch press release	No
6	GlobalNewsWire press release	No
7	EdSurge press release	No
8	EdSurge press release	No
9	TechCrunch press release	No
10	TechCrunch press release	No
11	TechCrunch press release	No
12	TechCrunch press release	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam article pushed into main space by socks. As per nominator's thorough analysis, the sourcing is not of the standard required for WP:NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable company with trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and all above. SoyokoAnis 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone give me the diff of where the author didn't respond to claims of COI? SoyokoAnis 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoyokoAnis: On their talk page, see User talk:Naktipanchal201 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Kemalcan (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devoke water 17:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.