Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Entrepreneurs 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Entrepreneurs Foundation[edit]

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

Masses of refs from their own web-site. Refs from all the start-ups they have helped and refs for key players but I can't see a single ref that gives notability to the organisation. No evidence of any notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits - there's not enough evidence of independent notability. If you delete all sources published by the subject, you're left with nothing of substance. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) -- I think there's potential as the organisation is mentioned somewhat regularly in The Guardian, for example: "How to get ahead ... as a social entrepreneur". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would agree that the reference problem is difficult, but perhaps fixable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (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.