List of companies founded by Harvard University alumni : The sources are just lists or rankings or non-neutral.  Only the Stanford list (which I have excluded) has the proper sourcing to justify its existence IMO.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, please read my reply to (@ Dream Focus ) and let me know what you think.  Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 08:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: List of companies founded by Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of companies founded by UC Berkeley alumni ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of companies founded by University of Pennsylvania alumni ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Also delete the template "Companies founded by University alumni".  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all What college someone went to doesn't matter.   Same textbooks, same classes, so no valid reason to list this.  D r e a m Focus 04:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, here are my thoughts on this: While it is true Stanford has received some exposure as a the "uber-university of entrepreneurship" as you (@ Clarityfiend ) claimed in your deletion request for "List of companies founded by Brown University alumni," the general phenomenon of start-up and entrepreneurship is not and was never a Stanford specific one.  In fact, other universities had notable exposures as well.  As apparent in the 2023 Pitchbook list that you cited as a rationale on why a 20th-ranked Brown University should be deleted while the 1st-placed Stanford University should be kept, many universities in the top 5 of the said list have more or less similar numbers of founders (especially, if we consider the time-variables on the year of the respective Pitchbook count).  In fact, on the list you specifically cited, Berkeley ranks 2nd with 1433 founders to Stanford's 1435 founders.  Furthermore, the lists are not meant to be competitive tallies, as apparent in the absence of tallied numbers of founders or companies.  The tally-taking can be left to third party entities such as Pitchbook itself.  In a similar vein, I think that a deletion based on the lack of contribution to the said "cultural phenomenon", which you seem to have based on the number of founders, is not warranted as a necessity.  If we are eliminating them on the grounds that they are mere listings of attendee/alumni and companies (albeit their respective notabilities), then either a complete deletion of all such lists is better and more equitably neutral way to go.  Leaving out the Stanford founders list alone while deleting all others do not seem to be an impartial and neutral approach at all.  In fact, as per the "PR of universities" claim, the Stanford article/list is not necessarily a "non-neutral" one either: it fails to mention any notable company that has been involved in serious and well-documented downfalls such as Theranos, Terraform Labs (of Terra/Luna coins), and Ethos Capital among many others.  On top of this, while there are places that need improvement (such as clarification and adherence to agreed upon standards of sources) in all these lists (even the Stanford one), the existence of the lists themselves seem warranted if we are basing one (Stanford) of them on its contribution the utterly GENERAL phenomenon of entrepreneurship.  What the articles need are improvement on some of the citations and formats, not an outright deletion of all of them.  Also, the "non-neutral" attribute of the phenomenon can be kept if all universities are allowed to keep a list of founders solely based on the notability of the companies that were founded and listed as separate article entities on Wikipedia.  The phenomenon of entrepreneurship was not invented or is not owned solely by Stanford University.  Thanks for reading and let me know your thoughts.  Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 08:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and let's not forget, many of these founders from whichever university's list have actually graduated from or attended many other universities (either ones with their own respective list or ones that do not have such a list).  Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 09:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where do you get the notion that I was basing anything on the number of founders?  (I'm basing it on sources like The Independent , The New Yorker and Reuters articles, the book Inventing the entrepreneurial university: Stanford and the co-evolution of Silicon Valley , etc.)  And if companies like Theranos are missing from the list, then WP:FIXIT .  AfD is not for cleanup.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the response.  Well, according to the deletion log in "List of companies founded by Brown University alumni," you mentioned the following: 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) According to this list , Stanford ranks #1, while Brown is #20.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the list cited does rank the schools based on number of founders, it would not be a far assumption to say that you were basing the need for a similar list to exist on the basis of the schools' number of founders or the schools' contribution to the phenomenon of entrepreurship.  If you were not, then I do apologize for the assumption.  Nevertheless, my reasoning still does stand as there is no need for Stanford to be given a special treatment over all the other universities that have contributed to the general phenomenon of start-ups and entrepreneurship.  Especially since there seems to be no adequate quantitative way to measure such "contribution" if not for the number of founders or companies found.  As for the sources that you have mentioned, the same rationale stands for your argument on Theranos: the respective entries that use such sources on other universities' lists need to be fixed and improved, which is obviously not the same thing as deleting the entire lists.  I do not see why those two need to be equivocated.  Let me know what you think.  Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 14:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:NLIST , "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I believe the sources I have provided do just that. YMMV. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 17:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understandable. Like I stipulated earlier, if there are sources that can warrant existence of the list, it should most likely be fine. This is the rationale that I am tyring to point out for the lists of the other universities: they also have some reliable sources warranting their influence to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship. If the sources are not to satisfactory level, then these sources need to be fixed or improved upon. It should not automatically lead to the deletion of the lists, given that they already have some reliable sources to begin with. The sources currently listed in some of these lists are not exhaustive at all, they can easily be reinforced with more reliable ones. Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 17:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is there don't seem to be similar sources for the other universities. E.g. for Berkeley, all I can see is one weak Fortune announcement: "University of California Is Putting Money Into an Alumni VC Fund" . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the response. Understandable point, but I respectfully disagree on some aspects of it. Even putting aside my honest and personal opinion that Stanford thrives on its and the newspapers’ VC and entrepreneurship propaganda to some extent (and many universities are following suit), there are many academic sources that account for the role of other universities. While it is true that many early VC funds were from Stanford graduates, these funds did not fund Stanford-founded firms only (that would be a hugely misleading statement to make, actually), not to mention that there were other numerous VC funds from other sources. Furthermore, some of the sources account for the fact that the absolute amount of these funds from early private fundings are nowhere close to the government research fundings that eventually gave way to the patents created in the research universities. And if we are talking about the model of Stanford’s early academic entrepreneurship, the entire Stanford’s growing-on-defense-contracts model of its early days was molded after MIT (even Steve Blank, a prominent Stanford proponent argues this). MIT’s early and continuing contribution to the entrepreneurial scene is accounted for on many sources. Some of these sources: (https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1304.html) (From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community) (Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond) Similarly for Berkeley, there are numerous academic sources that account for the fuller picture of the historical and current role of public institutions in the growth of university-industry technology transfers and its contribution to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship (through faculty spin-offs, licensing of patents, and whatnots more or less identical to Stanford) in California and Silicon Valley. Although these sources are not as easily located as newspaper articles, they still are valid sources that attribute to the existence of a vibrant culture of entrepreneurship spurring regional development. And to make matters more interesting, I think we need to consider the fact that Berkeley attendees have consistently been ranking as the most number of founders on all six accounts (i.e. undergraduate, graduate, MBA, and the same three for female-specific attendees) for all public institutions. To be honest, these feats in themselves account for an unusual entrepreneurial phenomenon in and of themselves given that they are coming from a public institution. I think that disregarding Berkeley’s role in it would be to disregard the entire public institutions’ role in it. Some of these sources I am referring to are: (Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act.) (Public Universities and Regional Growth: Insights from the University of California.) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiA8ufFu7KDAxX5i68BHVEcDM4QFnoECDMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbrill.com%2Fdownloadpdf%2Fjournals%2Fthj%2F7%2F2-3%2Farticle-p277_7.xml&usg=AOvVaw0HsdH5alvpi5O9q8nmbDc4&opi=89978449) (https://brie.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/brie-working-paper-2017-1.pdf) (https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/JapanBerkSymp/AQW_Urbanization_020407.pdf) (https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2019/07/24/the-berkeley-remix-podcast-season-4-episode-2-berkeley-lightning-a-public-universitys-role-in-the-rise-of-silicon-valley/) Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops, I meant these sources to be posted as actual links. Sorry for the confusion: Some of the sources for MIT: ( https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1304.html ) ( From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community ) ( Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond ) Some of the sources for Berkeley: ( Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act.) ( Public Universities and Regional Growth: Insights from the University of California. ) ( The Role of Universities in Shaping the Evolution of Silicon Valley’s Ecosystem of Innovation ) ( https://brie.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/brie-working-paper-2017-1.pdf ) ( https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/JapanBerkSymp/AQW_Urbanization_020407.pdf ) ( https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2019/07/24/the-berkeley-remix-podcast-season-4-episode-2-berkeley-lightning-a-public-universitys-role-in-the-rise-of-silicon-valley/ ) Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 08:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete These lists are too open-ended. The ivy league schools do in fact see a high proportion of alumni start successful companies. Why this is so, we can debate, it doesn't matter. Similar lists might include companies founded by vets of the Marine Corp (there are a lot). Companies founded by people who didn't go to university/college. It's endless. For the purpose of these universities, I think a better list is spin-off companies from the university research labs ie. a professor and students make a discovery or refine a process, see commercial potential, spin it off for commercial development. -- Green C 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. Just to clarify my understanding: by "These lists are too open-ended", do you mean that the contents of each list (i.e. the alumni and the attendees of degree-giving programs) are too open-ended or the lists (i.e. list per university) themselves as categories are too open-ended? I ask this because I think that the lists' parameters (i.e. the alumni and the attendees of degree-giving programs) are more or less closed off to those only that have attended the said institutions on a degree-giving program basis. Which is not only mentioned in each lede of the said lists and to an understandable degree not that "open-ended", albeit that they are not exhaustive in their essence. If there are companies that are not founded by people (i.e. "vets of the Marine Corp" and "people who didn't go to university/college") within the proper parameters of "alumni and attendees (of degree-giving programs)" then they need to weeded off, not the entire list necessarily. Nevertheless, I agree with the claim that these lists in themselves are "too open-ended" that they can just as well be made for any university, whether in the past or in the future, give enough credence to their contribution to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship. This is the same argument I proposed in the beginning when I argued that Stanford's list needs to be deleted as well if we are deleting all of these lists. I still think that the Stanford list needs to be deleted as well along with other lists if we are going to delete any one of them that actually have reliable sources pertaining to their respective contributions to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship. As for the refined of the lists' parameters to "spin-off companies from the university research labs", I agree with you. But the definition of a "spin-off" from universities is one that is a difficult one to measure since we would need to consider several variables more than the current lists: whether the "spin-offs" pertain to licensing by the universities only, or whether actual involvement of professors (or what if it only involved students), or whether the idea was first floated and developed in a class but independently made into products and companies outside the universities as, etc. Theoretically, we would not only need to tighten the parameters for such lists (which could make the lists themselves un-notable enough to not need separate Wikipedia articles in the first place) or the lists would ironically be much more "open-ended". Let me know what you think. Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 07:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (I realize that I have so many typos. Forgive me if they deter your understanding of my statements and please let me know if you need any clarification! And BTW, Happy New Year to you all!) Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Oh and we also need to consider another important variable for "spin-off" companies: what if the firms were backed by the universities' venture arms? Should they count as "spin-offs"?) Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 07:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's open ended in both senses, within the list, and the number of lists. It is curious right, we only have lists for some premier schools, and not middling schools, like where I attended, even though I personally founded a company 30 years ago, but would find it ludicrous to see my company listed on Wikipedia in such a list (it was a small company but has claims to notability). But if I went to Harvard, I would almost expect such attention, or not be surprised by it. It demonstrates the underlying systemic bias of these lists, and to counter that bias would require a lot more universities to have lists, which is too open ended.  -- Green C 06:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all , in light of the arguments I put forward regarding existing reliable sources that have since been added to the articles. OR Delete all , if having reliable sources still do not warrant the existence of the lists and therefore needs to delete a list with a reliable source. If so, delete all, including: List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 09:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies founded by Brown University alumni ended in delete.  All the rest are nominated now except List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni , that an oversight.  Delete it too hopefully, since its the same as the rest. D r e a m Focus 20:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, thanks for the comment, (@ Dream Focus ). First of all, Happy New Year to you! And secondly, I am not sure if you have noticed already but I am fairly new to the Wikipedia scene and I am still struggling to adjust to the rather esoteric functions and widgets here. I tried looking up on how to nominate articles for deletion and I find that the procedure was a bit difficult to execute for me. I could play around with it, but I really do not want to mess up the “source” codes like I did to this article on my first comment. If it is not too much of a trouble would you be able to help me nominate the Stanford list as one of the lists discussed in this AfD article? (If anyone is willing, please help?) It would be greatly appreciated. Adarwinismshellfire ( talk ) 05:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A closing admin that sees a !vote both ways is probably going to treat it as effectively "abstain". But I appreciate your deep thinking on this subject, looking at the nuances and and not being a win/loose mindset. We need a lot more of that. -- Green C 06:32, 2 January 2024 (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