Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce

[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)

COI article creation (per creator's username). Mentioned in passing in a bunch of sources, but I'm really not finding the required in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The organization seems to have changed their name to EastCham Finland, see following sources. Searching the English name does not give many results, but using the Finnish name does. A few articles I found are: [1][2][3][4][5]. However, around half of these websites are behind a paywall, so I'm not too confident about the quality of those sources, hence the weak keep. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Finland, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources found by ARandomName123 are quite strong, Helsingin Sanomat is the largest newspaper of Finland as well as the newspaper of record. Talouselämä is a large economic magazine and Maaseudun Tulevaisuus is a mid-sized newspaper. The former name "Suomalais-Venäläinen kauppakamari" is used more widely in sources. MKFI (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep In terms of notability, I think the sources identified both here and in the article are sufficient for a GNG/NORG keep. There's also a good ref from 1946 in the fi.wp article. But I certainly wouldn't object if someone stubified the article by e.g. removing the whole "Description" section. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Weak Keeps from participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ARandomName123 and Ljleppan the significant coverage is rather obvious from the sources given, this more seems to be the same issue I've seen on Swedish-subject AfD discussions where it's difficult for the WP:AVERAGE wikipedian to participate and judge the sources being discussed. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MKFI -NotAGenious (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2023 (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.