Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volkswagen 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 Technical Keep considering this has enough for an article and this would also need familiar attention this altogether there are currently no concerns for deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Foundation

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

Unsourced article. Holypod (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that "unsourced article" is not a particularly valid rationale for deletion; see WP:NEXIST and WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't find many extensive articles in English, but there seems to be at least one history of the foundation published in German. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very large, influential non-profit organization. The German version of the article makes a clear case for the historical and current notability of the organization and cites some book sources; many more are evident in the usual Google searches for the German name of the organization (see above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per errant deletion rationale. An arguable notable topic being unsourced is a reason to add some if one is so worried about it, not delete because it has not been done by someone else. Diligence is expected before making judgments, and as others easily found them, it is safe to believe that the nominator did not look. WP:NRVE & WP:NEXIST show noability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 15 May 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.