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. Please do WP:BEFORE. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villum Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaKor and may be using sockpuppets. Daniel0wellby (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 29 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 May I suggest this nomination be WP:WITHDRAWN? Sam Sailor 10:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Sam. Very easily meets the bar of WP:CORP. Not a great nom. A Train^talk 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 – Multiple entries in both Universe Today and Nature.com, as shown here [1]. Two well respected – secondary – independent – reliable source. Falls well within the guidelines for Notability for Organizations. ShoesssS ^Talk 09:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easy pass via WP:ORG. Basie (talk) 03:22, 4 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]
• Keep - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 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.