Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctica Finance


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Arctica Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCORP Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media abouts profits and business, staff hirings and legal troubles, including but not limited to . Alvaldi (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Malvinsub3. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Even if it passes notability delete per WP:TNT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree on that point. Despite the authors' behaviour, the page was never hopelessly irreparable as the WP:TNT essay reffers to. When it was proposed for deletation it was an undersourced stub that had four statements which all where factually correct, that is what kind of company this is, location, when it was established and by who. As a firm believer in that Deletion is not cleanup, I did a short search for the company in the Icelandic media and found ample coverage and improved the sourcing and added a few other statements. As it stands, the subject of the article passes the general notability guideline and the article's past problems where easily fixable with search for sources per WP:BEFORE and minor style cleanup. Alvaldi (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG, WP:TNT and WP:NCORP --Donjohnsosn5 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC) — Donjohnsosn5 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Closing admin should note that User:Donjohnsosn5 was created today and has made few or no other edits outside of this AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Donjohnsosn5 after this comment then edited some more articles so the above comment is no longer true in the sense that they no longer appear to be an SPA (but that could be bc they are trying to not look like an SPA). Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * taken it to SPI to see if it is sockpuppetry though, given the fact that sockpuppetry has occured on the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument to keep doesn't make sense your saying it passes WP:TNT which is a deletion argument? Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a misunderstanding on my part regarding the argument WP:TNT, I take back the WP:TNT. I am recommending to Keep article.--Donjohnsosn5 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sock vote stricken. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There are lots of foreign language references cited in the article. In such cases, the burden of proving that an article fails NCORP/GNG requires a detailed source analysis by the nominator (or other delete voters). In the absence of a convincing source analysis, I'm not seeing a convincing argument for deletion. Likewise, the article does not have any glaring issues that make a TNT warranted. 4meter4 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG due to an abundance of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Since this is about a company/organization, then we look to WP:NCORP as the appropriate Guideline (as per GNG) and not vanilla GNG. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
 * There appears to be sufficient references that meet NCORP criteria, for example the Timarit.is reference and the vb.is reference. Topic meets NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.