Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic Adventures

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. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for companies. While there is some coverage by reliable sources, the coverage is passing or otherwise insignificant. With its promotional content now removed, the article does little more than assert that this company exists. It cannot be meaningfully expanded unless more significant coverage is found, and that seems unlikely given that this discussion has already run for three weeks. -- Scott (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Adventures[edit]

[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)

Largely written like a promo piece or travel magazine listing. Nothing has been presented to establish notability of the company beyond its pure existence. There are plenty of mentions of the kind of "if you plan to do this, here are a few companies that offer x-y-z", however this does not establish notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are passing mentions. Csgir (talk)

Delete: let's analyse the sources. Originally on the fence, other users' analysis plus the sockpuppetry revelation has tipped it to delete for me.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
VisitReykjavik.is	WP:SPS	~ WP:SPS can be good for business details but may embellish reviews.	Having a website doesn't connote notability.	✘ No
NZ Herald	Not affiliated.	Unfamiliar with publication, assuming good faith.	AA is mentioned once in passing.	✘ No
ProjectExpedition.com	? Looks like an aggregator site.	~ It doesn't make many claims about the company to be assessed.	Looks like a directory or automated business entry.	✘ No
Grapevine.is	Sponsored content.	See above.	Mentions the company twice and displays some photos, I guess that is significant enough.	✘ No
Iceland Monitor		No reason to suspect unreliability.	Mentions AA's CEO's view on a particular policy. Passing.	✘ No
Adventure Travel News	Appears unaffiliated / unsponsored.	? Something about the title including a .is doesn't seem quite right, unfamiliar with the publication so leaving it as a question mark.		? Unknown
Cleveland.com		No reason to suspect unreliability.	Blog-type post about their trip. Only mentions of AA are when they say they booked through them.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

However, the BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent are major publications and the company is recommended in lists by them (1, 2, 3, 4. Is it passing? Kind of, but taken holistically I can't decide whether it passes GNG. Either way, the article needs some serious cleanup to conform with WP:NPOV. SITH (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major player in the Icelandic tourist industry with plenty of coverage from the national media RÚV Vísir Morgunblaðið Fréttablaðið. The article is clearly promotional and needs work but the company is notable. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extendive coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional article. The sourced content is mostly directory of reviews (which only include subtle mentions of the company) that don't offer much to supporting WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have removed the promotional material (list of minor partners, list of minor awards, list of passing mentions in the media) and attempted to present it neutrally. There was not a whole lot of non-promotional material so it is fairly short at the moment. Although they are indeed a fairly large tourism company in Iceland, they are simply a normal tourism company that offers activities X. They have not done anything particularly notable. – Þjarkur (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, thanks for this. I've had another look at the editor and I have now decided to leave a COI message on their talk page. The edits do give the impression of professional editing. One of the first edits was to linkspam the article about Iceland with Arctic Adventures, they went on to plug articles of chefs with links back to the external websites of catering colleges they visited (dubious), plus a few other activities around article creation of companies and linkspam. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author is confirmed sock master as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LFWG _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as company does not meet the clear requirements for significant coverage in WP:NCORP. This company verifiably exists and clearly has marketed itself well. But that's not notability. It's great that a two line promotional description shows up in the Guardian and BBC sources, but the famous media names do not make the coverage significant. WP:NCORP is clear that "the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source." Likewise, the coverage in Icelandic sources is largely of the routine variety repeating press release information (e.g. X bought Y and now has N employees, 2 quotes from company spokesperson/PR about bright future), and WP:NCORP is clear that "the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." While there is no doubt that this company is interesting, they do not seem to be notable in Wikipedia terms. Bakazaka (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bakazaka. Also WP:WHYN explains that significant coverage is required so that we can write an article, rather than simply a few sentences. There isn't the detailed coverge needed from which to source a proper article.--Pontificalibus 12:00, 29 December 2018 (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.