List of companies founded by Brown University alumni: The creation of companies by Brown University alumni is not a notable cultural phenomenon.  WP:CROSSCAT says: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".  Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.  See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business ,  and Lists .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Rhode Island .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and WP:NLIST .  Brown is not the uber-university of entrepreneurship.  That would be Stanford, as explained in List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to this list , Stanford ranks #1, while Brown is #20.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  According to the linked ranking, Brown ranks 6th (out of the 100 evaluated universities) in terms of capital raised, sitting immediately below the other 5 companies with similar lists .  This standing is liable to increase as the university invests in these programs.  Filetime ( talk ) 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  You haven't explained why it is better grounded in policy to keep all of them, including the template, rather than deleting them as bad lists, except perhaps the MIT or Stanford ones.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 17:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Only Stanford has adequate sourcing.  The others just have mentions in lists or non-independent boasting.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Clarityfiend.  Dympies ( talk ) 01:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus.  More policy based input would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all Whether someone went to a certain college or not, is irrelevant to their success.   Colleges all use the same textbooks and have the same business classes anyway.  D r e a m Focus 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think the nominator makes a pretty good point about this being a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (thus satisfying WP:DELREASON#14 : Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia ), but I also have to say that this is pretty transparently promotional—a prestige-measuring contest between universities, if you will.  That also falls under the broader heading of WP:NOT , specifically WP:NOTPROMO : Wikipedia is not the university's PR team and should not act as if it were.  This of course applies to all such lists for various universities.  This article in particular doesn't exactly hide that it's also a work of WP:Original research , cross-referencing company founders with alumni.  Where's the reliable source that made this cross-categorization on a group level, and why isn't it cited?  My suspicion is that it simply does not exist.  This kind of WP:SYNTH nightmare is the reason List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation had to be remade from scratch, but in that case we actually had a proper list external to Wikipedia to base it upon.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete