Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backun Musical Services


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Backun Musical Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a manufacturer of musical instruments, not properly referenced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist; the notability test is the quality of the sources they can show to support an article, not just the things the article says. But two of the four footnotes here are the company's own self-published website about itself and the self-published website of another company that's a part owner of this one, and a third staples this company's own self-published website to a glancing mention of its existence on one page of a book that isn't about it as one footnote -- so none of those footnotes count for anything at all toward demonstrating the company's notability. And while the fourth footnote is a real article, substantively about this company, in a real magazine, it still takes quite a bit more than just one source of that type to make a company notable enough for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinion
Backun is, from an objective point of view - beyond the ideas in the Wikipedia administration - a notable company, for at least these reasons:

1. Backun established the world's most modern clarinet factory in 2012. It still is today.

2. Within just a few years, Backun has developed from an unknown two-man company to a company that undoubtedly produces the best quality French A and Bb clarinets in the world and is therefore also known as the “noble smithy” for these clarinets.

3. In terms of sales, Backun ranks 3rd among clarinet manufacturers worldwide.

I know that all of these are not criteria for notability for certain people on Wikipedia. The number and quality of external publications about this company are relevant to their perception of notability and only to the extent that they are listed as references in the article.

When it comes to serious sources on clarinet-related topics, experts consider the sources of first choice:


 * Jane Ellsworth A Dictionary for the Modern Clarinetist, 2014


 * Eric Hoeprich, The Clarinet, Yale University Press, 2008

The article on the largest and oldest manufacturer of clarinets, Buffet Crampon, founded in 1789, is based in the German version - de:Buffet Crampon only on Hoeprich, only on this single source and no one would think to delete the article due to Buffet Crampon's lack of notability. Now Hoeprich appeared in 2008, a year in which Backun was still a small and little-known company. In a new edition, Hoeprich would certainly deal extensively with Backun.

But we still have the Ellsworth Dictionary from 2014. Backun is listed here with a brief description of his career and the delveloped products. That speaks for a notability of this company. Meanwhile there are a number of other independent publications on the development and products of this company. As far as they could be found during an internet search, I have put them as references in the article. The number of references is now 20, Buffet Crampon in the Englisch version has only 6. Even if there are a few who are not independent, this should be sufficient to prove the level of awareness of the company.--Gisel (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly notable and much better sourced than when I saw it last. Could perhaps be better if shorter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now shortened the text by 1100 characters.--Gisel (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks well-referenced to me. It does need some work on grammar and formatting, but these factors are not relevant to notability or quality of sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Category:Musical instrument makers don't get much coverage in mainstream media, so their articles make up for that by citing the relevant specialized publications. In this case specifically, their entry in A Dictionary for the Modern Clarinetist alone satifies WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable subject. The article looks like it underwent improvement during this AfD. Wm335td (talk) 21:44, 25 January 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.