Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venturefondet

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venturefondet

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

WP:Corp (notability). A prod placed on August 18 should have already expired was contested after 13 days. No assertion of notability is made through size or importance. The article has remained a single paragraph stub for three years and does not include any helpful references. No mentions in Google news seems unlikely to establish notability |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.
Delete. An utterly unremarkable fund: venture capital government enterprise.... It has no operations of its own and is managed by its board. The company is in a liquidation phase. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference #1 in the article goes to the wrong place; reference 2 is accurate but this provides more information and substantiates the existing article. This shows "NOK 75 million as a result of the write-down of equity in Venturefondet AS." (Both English.) I see some other sources on investments made by the fund when it was operating, and here is a 3-page letter by the chairman that likely provides good data (Norwegian, pdf). I think this article could have usefully been created with more info in it. But the story's over and I don't see any assertions of great importance that would justify keeping it. The Norwegian article appears to have been deleted. Unless I'm missing something that makes it notable under the specific applicable criteria - something can of course have been notable in the past but now no longer be in existence - IMO this doesn't merit keeping. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (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.