Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltcap

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. Per Renata's analysis of the additional sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baltcap

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

(version at time of AfD Nomination; Diff between AfD nominated version and current state)

Not notable investment fund JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I prod'ed the article. No significant coverage. Renata (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In my eyes, properly referenced and still an entity in it's own right. --BestOnLifeform (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails GNG as there's no significant coverage about the company. The only things in Google News are a couple of press releases and blog articles about them selling something. Nothing worth them having an article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is more information in the article than I can find on Google. Dorama285 17:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've spent a bit of time pulling easily found items from Google News and using them to enhance the article; diff of current version as of this writing vs. version at time of nomination. Now, most of the information added is about its latest funds, but the frequency of the findings suggests relatively regular coverage in news outlets. Note that I found nothing when looking at Newspapers.com, likely because the resource lacks any Eastern European newspapers. Definitely still a Start class article, but more than a stub at this point. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Ceyockey: article still does not have significant sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. Ref numbers based on this version. #1 Rask is a related party announcement; #2 & 3 & 4 - press releases; #5 can't say as it's behind a paywall; #6 is mere mention with no significant discussion; #7 and 8 - press release pretending to be an article. They are active making deals (like any other fund), but there is no significant coverage that's independent of them. The only non-press-release-based articles I found (in Lithuanian) mentioned the fund in relation to Lithuania National Stadium (they got a concession there in December 2019) and in short-lived allegations of corruption against Gabrielius Landsbergis. But those articles just mention BaltCap and squarely focus on the stadium and on Landsbergis. Renata (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Renata3: That's fair. Sometimes, though incidental mentions support notability. For instance, just added a peer reviewed journal article that notes the firm being the biggest of its kind as of 2014 in the Baltic States; notions of "biggest" are taken into account in respect to notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking that if the article is kept, it should be moved to BaltCap. --03:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Incidental mentions are neither in-depth nor significant, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 27 February 2020 (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.