Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Icelandic New Business Venture Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A company that I'm not sure if it meets wiki guidelines or not. The website is in Icelandic which if anyone knows that be great. My only results on google seem to be linked to some books but that's it. Wgolf (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, one statement without 3rd party reference, that could be anything, e.g., spam, or malware, or adware, or SEO, or spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only link is to the firm's website. I nominated it for a WP:Speedy deletion because it does not make a claim to notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BEFORE, anyone? There are now six references, most to books/journals. --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  15:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is about nominating, and with issues listed for six years anyway not applicable. What you found suggests that this was something real, not a mere hoax. But "no hoax" is not the same as notable. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete the sources merely confirm what this fund does but nothing indepth. zero hits in gnews archives. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the sources? At least two, possibly three, are significant coverage. Since this is heading towards delete for some bizarre reason despite being obviously notable, I'm requesting that it be userfied. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of the sources appear to be primary or brief mentions as indicated by, however these two from Google Books contain exactly the type of biographical content we need to source a good article. Since they are books, rather than press, they would not have come up in Libstar's searches. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I told you I looked up before-but couldn't find info. Wgolf (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't you admit that you found "some books"? Anyway, since it's now been improved, would you consider switching to keep? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep – Meets WP:GNG weakly. Source examples include book, book, book, European Commission. North America1000 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I had not seen that last source. I will try to incorporate it into the article. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  01:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A governmental company with ample reliable sources (books listed above) is notable. The fund is still active, owning a large part of a hydrogen demonstration company with Icelandic New Energy. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (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.