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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newfund[edit]

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

Pure trade puffery of non notable investment house. After removing the founder's personal prior history there is nothing left of the article that shows any notability and the alleged references do not mention Newfund at all. Article was speedy deleted in March 2014. Fiddle Faddle 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had created the previous version and had felt its speedy deletion was entirely unwarranted. Newfund is a prominent name in the French venture capital community. It is in the nature of venture capital firms to communicate little but this is a significant economic actor. To name only one example, Medtech, a company in which Newfund was the first early-stage investor, is one of the most prominent French start-up success stories of the past year, and its founder was showcased during the French President's state visit to the US in March 2014. Montfleur 14:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no demonstrated notability and the references do not show what they purport to show. The references must who the Newfund connection or they may as well not be present. At present they are valueless. Newfund does not inherit notability form the people it invests in. It must be inherently notable to have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know what makes VC funds notable if not their investments - look at any in the List of venture capital firms, the key thing that makes them what they are is the companies in which they have invested. The list of Newfund's investments is on their website, so this is documented (now reference note #1 in the article). More info on the investment in those firms by Newfund exists from the specialized press, this can be added but would be redundant - do you advise it should be added to the article? IMHO the more important question is how successful these investments are. Newfund started in 2008 and is a long-term investor, so this can not (yet) be measured by exit prices. Therefore the core criterion for notability is to look at the invested companies' achievements. It would be genuinely appreciated if you could indicate which alternative notability criteria you would consider for an organization like this one. Boubloub 23:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have now added more references from third sources on Newfund's investments, as well as the volume of funds initially raised (EUR 72m). Boubloub 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This fund company appears notable in the context of France, where VCs are scarce especially those independent from the state and from big banking groups. investment in MedTech alone makes it a significant player. Aplatanao99 2:55am, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Two of the keep !votes above are not based upon Wikipedia guidelines or policies and don't qualify article retention per guidelines/policies, so relisting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2014 (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.