- Storyz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djpinklady/sandbox - page not meant to be spam Djpinklady (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the headers here. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at the references, it seems to me that most are regurgitations of a press release. I am inclined to deny recreation, but will await other users' opinions before taking a final decision. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two strongest sources, Yahoo Finance and Wash. Post, seem to just be reprinting an article from "mocoNews.net", and I can't tell of that's a press release or what. The other prose sources trace back to mediapost.com, and also could be press releases. Technically, this probably isn't speedy deletable any more, though. "funded by Motorola" seems like a claim of importance. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion. inadequately sourced. Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy and send to AfD. claim of importance, and not fundamentally spam. DGG (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Twitter Wikipedia
Finances
About US$57 million of Twitter is owned by venture capitalists. CEO Evan Williams raised about $22 million in venture capital.[7] Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital, and Bezos Expeditions (led by Jeff Bezos of Amazon).[8] Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital backed Twitter in 2009, investing an additional $35 million.The Industry Standard has pointed to its lack of revenue as limiting its long-term viability.[9] On February 13, 2009, Twitter announced on its official blog[1] that it had closed a third round of funding in which it secured more than $35 million[10] When asked about how he was going to use the additional investment funds in an interview, Williams said:
We don't know all the ways we're going to use that money, hopefully we'll keep a lot of it in the bank. If we never need a lot of it, that's great, but in the climate we're in we don't want to assume too much, and we don't want any short term concerns to distort the potential of our long term vision, and our investors and the boards and everybody is very on board for building a very long term viable company. We need to do that step by step, and we need to invest a lot to get there.[11]
is this also a claim of importance? Djpinklady (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure what Twitter has to do with this article. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best I can figure is that she's saying that like Twitter, which is highly notable, Storyz got major funding from notable investors. Unfortunately Wikipedia notability doesn't really work like that, there needs to be evidence of meaningful third party coverage of a topic. Just for the sake of making this DRV less annoying to close, I'm going to say allow recreation (moving the current page from the userspace to the article space). There's a claim of importance now, if anyone disputes notability (I might) this should go to AFD, not DRV. there wasn't an invalid deletion here, but there is an improved article to move back to the article space. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes Chiliad22. thank you. that is what i'm trying to say. it is my understanding that wikipedia is a resource. i thought that meant the more information you had on an article, especially the history of the business, the more resourceful the article was. i added in the funding actually based off the Twitter article to add more history to the company itself. not as a claim of importance. I feel that the Storyz article is being misunderstood. Djpinklady (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. There is no real chance of this passing AFD, so it would be dysfunctional to send it through that. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
