Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Brunswick Innovation Foundation


 * 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   keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New Brunswick Innovation Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 10:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tone may need improvement to be less promotional and may need more reliable sources to demonstrate notability, but has been noted as created by the provincial government in Canadian Annual Review of Politics and Public Affairs 2002 & ongoing funding in industry media and Canadian Press  Canuckle (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Banner, could you clarify how you think this is advertising? It doesn't seem particularly promotional to me -- and it was declined for speedy deletion on those grounds. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To my opinion it is advertising because the article is not a neutral description of the organisation but a wish list of industry types it wants to support.
 * After the declined speedy there were promises of improving the article. Except solving links to disambiguation pages nothing happened and the advertising is, in my opinion, still there. The Banner talk 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not seeing how this is promotional. I do think this needs a major cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - A brief Google search shows that this agency enjoys sufficient notability. As the nominator notes, this article is a candidate for editing and increased references.--Rpclod (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.