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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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)
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.