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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticStartup[edit]

ArcticStartup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like The Next Web , YourStory or many others. Light2021 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search[1] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from reputable organizations that cover ArcticStartup and the Arctic15 conference - MarketWatch, The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch. New Europe. JenniBee (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that since this is a Nordic company, it is referenced a lot more in Finnish sources. For example - ArcticStartup and Arctic15 are covered extensively in the notable Finnish language business magazine, Talouselama (see the relevant Google searches: ArcticStartup, Arctic15). Since it is OK to use a foreign language source when the source is notable and it contains information that isn't available in notable English sources (in this case, it is, as it gives significant information on the profit and growth of the company), I've added to the article with more information and references. JenniBee (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One, there is no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, and second, every single source listed is published and republished PR by what the company wants to advertise about itself, and I've noted it above and it shows in the article as it is. Even with Finnish sources, it would perhaps still be questionable, and given everything else, there's still enough to suggest deletion would be best. "significant information on the profit and growth of the company", that may be, but that's not automatically establishing notability, especially if its only methods of causing that are by advertising itself, including in these listed links. I'll then note nearly all of the listed links are websites we've pegged as being notoriously "republish PR", so the fact these may be the best there is, is self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why many of the English websites rely on public relations materials is because of the language barrier - the website itself is in English, but the convention (which is what gives ArcticStartup notability) is in Finland, so much of the event is in Finnish. Arctic15 is known as the premier convention for startups in the Nordic region. That's the reason why notable publications like Wall Street Journal go to ArcticStartup for the CEO's opinion on Nordic startups (as noted above). Neither The Wall Street Journal article nor the articles on Talouselama are public relations articles (there is a wealth of information in the Finnish sources that aren't public relations pieces). Arctic15 has brought investors into Finland ( http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 ), has included entrepreneurs from English speaking countries as speakers (as noted in the article), and is used as a source in regards to Nordic startups by organizations deemed notable by English Wikipedia (WSJ, as I noted previously, and CNBC ( http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/16/the-global-entrepreneurship-boom-is-about-jobs.html ) for example). Talouselama itself is a reliable mainstream outlet - and there is a lot of articles that aren't "fluff" pieces in that magazine. It has significant independent coverage from reliable sources - especially the Finnish journals - and is sought out by English speaking sources for it's expertise in Nordic startups. Because of that, it meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. JenniBee (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ and CNBC articles are poor for notability, as the mentions are very brief and provide little context about the site, merely calling it "a technology blog" as context for a quote from the CEO. The Talouselama linked is better (I think), but as a source it's limited in circulation and focused by both topic and region, which does diminish its weight somewhat (WP:AUD). Even with that focus, it's still surprisingly brief. I am reluctant to use Google Translate, but if that's accurate, it's not particularly good for WP:CORPDEPTH, either. It's usable, and better than nothing, but it's underwhelming. Yes, non-English sources absolutely can be used, but is that source actually providing any information that's not available anywhere else? Also, asking us to do a Google search is understandable, but not persuasive when we likely don't actually speak the language, so can you tell us if that is the best coverage in the magazine? If that's what's going on, it's not a good sign, but I'm hoping you can show otherwise.
Event listings are only slightly more useful than press releases, per WP:ROUTINE and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, and sources which focus on the conference should be evaluated with that in mind. I am also curious why this website is only published in the English language, but is so extensively covered by Finnish-language sources. Who is the intended audience? I'm not sure if it even matters, but it would make evaluating sources easier. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the linking to Google. I've been searching for sources, and wanted to update the article to reflect that before the AfD went on with the article in the poor shape that it was. The two articles linked in the article by Talouselama: This one goes into detail about the change in ownership and the resulting growth of the company: http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/kasvuyritystapahtuma-arctic15-jarjestaja-paasi-hyvaan-kasvuun-taru-oli-vahalla-loppua-3476950 This one details the growth of the Arctic15 event in its second year, and how it has brought investors into Finland: http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 This one details how Antti Vilpponen planned to close ArcticStartup in 2012 before it was transferred over (mentioned in the article, but this source details it better): http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/kasvuyrityssivusto-ei-loytanyt-kumppania-tai-rahoitusta-lopettaa-yritystoiminnan-3429936 Half of the site's traffic is from Finland and other Nordic regions, and the convention is held in Helsinki, so that's likely why it gets more coverage in Finnish sources. Finland has a history of English language journalism in a Finnish speaking nation, as Helsinki Times is also is in English. JenniBee (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article on Kauppalehti about the awards at Arctic 15: http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/smarp-pitchasi-voittoon-startup-tapahtumassa/Cu6NHq62 There's likely more articles in Finnish sources, but it'll take a while for me to scour through them as it's harder than finding English sources (I have to search each publication on Google individually as Google News doesn't aggregate most Finnish language sources and there is no news aggregator on google.fi). JenniBee (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both Wired and The Economist cite Arctic Startup as being central to the recent Nordic entrepreneurial boom: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/helsinki http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570834-nordic-region-becoming-hothouse-entrepreneurship-if-doubt-innovate JenniBee (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any legit claim to being "central" in either of those sources. Both are passing mentions which treat the blog as an indicator of Finland's startup activity, definitely not as a central part of it. "Paraphernalia" is not central. They are no better than the CNBC and WSJ mentions. Grayfell (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. Those two sources are highly regarded in the business field, and the fact that they cited ArcticStartup as an indicator of the startup boom in Finland (and note that they didn't mention any of ArcticStartup's competitors such as Slush) certainly adds to the company's notability. JenniBee (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think additional Finnish sources might be more useful, but these are weak. These add to the company's notability, but very little. Being an indicator of something else is not the same as being central. Notability is not inherited. The notability of the scene doesn't translate to every product of that scene. Wired only gives one sentence to mentioning Arctic Startup, in passing, as an example product of the scene. It's definitely not describing it as central to that scene. The Economist is even worse for this: The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley). That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
Slush looks like it needs a ton of work, and Finnish startup scene is even worse. There are too many bad articles out there, so precedent isn't very persuasive. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above, "being involved in a starting company boom in Finland" itself in fact it's not yet notable and especially if all that is available are said trivial mentions, therefore simply naming the fact the news publication is a major one, is not meaning anything, because the contents themselves are still trivial. In all this time and the amount of apparent searching, nothing has shown of actual significance, therefore it states enough there's simply no substantial improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 11 November 2016 (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.
More