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.
This foundation does not seem to exist looking at the sites linked the "Velux" site end in a error 404 they seem to be a company selling housing things. Looking at the pages author's page he has done this before under similar names
/info/en/?search=User_talk:MaKor and may be using sockpuppets.
Daniel0wellby (
talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Did nom even
search for sources? When an article like
this in Nature says The Villum Fonden is the largest philanthropic foundation in Denmark for the support of technical and natural-science research. it is time to
start editing the article for its flaws, not send it to AFD. But perhaps that Nature article was not found in the 10 minutes that were available (
23:41–
23:51)? May I suggest this nomination be
WP:WITHDRAWN? SamSailor 10:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
Sam. Very easily meets the bar of
WP:CORP. Not a great nom.
ATraintalk 11:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep A big organization in Denmark that funds multimillion dollar research grants. A search with the Danish name yields more source even though many exist in English. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Is is generally advisable to perform a BEFORE search before nominating, especially on Big Danish foundations. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 02:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Sam.
Daask (
talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Running a quick BEFORE on Google News finds about 20 references. While many of them are purely incidental mentions that don't help establish notability, there are a few that do provide more substantial coverage. In concert with the Danish-language references which already exist in the article (and which I GF are relevant) this seems to pass GNG.
Chetsford (
talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (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.
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.
This foundation does not seem to exist looking at the sites linked the "Velux" site end in a error 404 they seem to be a company selling housing things. Looking at the pages author's page he has done this before under similar names
/info/en/?search=User_talk:MaKor and may be using sockpuppets.
Daniel0wellby (
talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Did nom even
search for sources? When an article like
this in Nature says The Villum Fonden is the largest philanthropic foundation in Denmark for the support of technical and natural-science research. it is time to
start editing the article for its flaws, not send it to AFD. But perhaps that Nature article was not found in the 10 minutes that were available (
23:41–
23:51)? May I suggest this nomination be
WP:WITHDRAWN? SamSailor 10:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, per
Sam. Very easily meets the bar of
WP:CORP. Not a great nom.
ATraintalk 11:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep A big organization in Denmark that funds multimillion dollar research grants. A search with the Danish name yields more source even though many exist in English. –
Ammarpad (
talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Is is generally advisable to perform a BEFORE search before nominating, especially on Big Danish foundations. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 02:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Sam.
Daask (
talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Running a quick BEFORE on Google News finds about 20 references. While many of them are purely incidental mentions that don't help establish notability, there are a few that do provide more substantial coverage. In concert with the Danish-language references which already exist in the article (and which I GF are relevant) this seems to pass GNG.
Chetsford (
talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (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.