Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruna (company)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruna (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced claim of having 375 shops is not an official sufficient criteria for WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG, but I guess it does merit a wider discussion. Can anyone find any sufficient, in-depth coverage of this company or such? BEFORE shows some mentions in Dutch but google translate suggests they are mentions in passing/press releases. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a plain campaign to remove a high street book chain from Wikipedia. First an speedy deletion request (denied), than a prod attempt (removed by me) and now an AfD. Why is a chain with 375 book stores not E? Are you using AfD to get the article improved? The Banner  talk 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Size is not a major factor in determining notability; if you disagree take this to WP:NCOMPANY. At present, as stated, this article doesn't have much going for it. Having a bunch of outlets (and we are still missing an independent verification of this claim) is not sufficient to make a company notable. PS. Please read WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * If it is to be preserved we need some independent references. Given the sort of operation it is maybe not in great depth, but I'd like to see some external coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Something like: Meer ruimte voor winkelbeleving, Bruna en AKO-moederbedrijf Audax gaan samen verder, Bruna overgenomen door moederbedrijf van concurrent AKO, Bruna wil meer brunaformule zien, Het nieuwe winkelen, Aandeelhouders PostNL en ING schieten Bruna te hulp. Yes, all in Dutch. But that is not unlikely with a Dutch book chain... The Banner  talk 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To speed things up, can you tell us which of those contain in-depth coverage, i.e. at least a paragraph (made out of at least several sentences), and not mentions in passing? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability here, fails on referencing too. The current (one) reference looks to be a primary source, possibly a white page kind of entry—can't tell for sure, as it's in a foreign language.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 12:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need for English languages sources here, as foreign sources are allowed. Replaced the source by an independent source. And added some other sources. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah...no. A couple of press releases about the take-over/merge that both mainly focus on the parent company Audax (does it have an article?) and the industry as a whole don't really qualify for significant coverage.  The financial report article showing the horrible state of the subject's financials verifies the company's existence, but not any notability; the obituary article about Henk Bruna does mention the company briefly, but not notably, and perhaps belongs at his article.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the sources? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Dutch is my native tongue, therefor I've little trouble reading the sources. The sources are of high quality. Meer ruimte voor winkelbeleving is discussed the Bruna formula in depth. This is an article in a respectable journal, written by a lector. The highest academic rank at a Dutch University of Applied sciences. Bruna en AKO-moederbedrijf Audax gaan samen verder is written by Floor Bauma, a respectable journalist. The first three paragraphs discuss Bruna in depth. Bruna overgenomen door moederbedrijf van concurrent AKO isn't a press release but an in depth article in a respectable newspaper. Intro and the first three paragraphs discuss Bruna in depth. Bruna wil meer Brunaformule zien is an in depth article in a respectable newspaper, written by the respectable journalist Elisa Hermanides. 13 paragraphs discuss Bruna and their legal trouble. Het nieuwe winkelen is a book written by Cor Molenaar, a professor at the Erasmus University. 1.5 pages in this book are dedicated to Bruna. Aandeelhouders PostNL en ING schieten Bruna te hulp has four paragraphs discussing Bruna. Nu.nl is one of the largest Dutch media outlets. Neither of those sources are press releases. Honestly, calling the work of respectable newspapers and their journalists press releases without merit, is offensive.
 * To add more sources, Bruna wil 100 nieuwe winkels, ‘we zijn geen grijze muis meer’ written by Peet Vogels. The full article is about Bruna. Nu ook Bruna in zwaar weer in Algemeen Dagblad. Two paragraphs discussing Bruna. Written by the journalist Alexander Leeuw.  Natuur12 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting so reviewers can check out new sources added. Remember, English language sources are not required to pass inclusion guidelines. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments of Natuur12. That the evidence of notability is not easily-accessible to most English speakers does make life a bit harder, because I cannot personally read the sources and so have to depend on the representations made by those who can.  But the detailed representations above describe exactly the sort of sources we'd demand.  Further, although having multiple locations does not inherently support notability, it does suggest that we ought to think hard about notability -- because one of the things that tends to happen when a company has hundreds of locations is that reliable sources start writing about them in some depth.  If our initial review doesn't show that to be happening here, then that's... kinda weird, and so we should just be really sure that the problem isn't on our end (for example, that the sources aren't just all in, uhh, Dutch.) TheOtherBob 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - assuming good faith, this appears to be a large retail chain that passes WP:NCORP. It's written in a neutral tone, and has some sources. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This one is on the edge but in my opinion just about meets the criteria as per WP:NCORP/GNG. Most of the !votes to Keep above seem to miss the key points when testing for notability. The test is not merely for "high quality" sources or whether the sources are written by a "respectable journalist". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of *significant* coverage with *in-depth* information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing *Independent Content* which is defined as follows: "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. In my opinion, the first reference discussing a conceptual model for Bruna meets the criteria. The second is based on an announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This third reference may not be a press release, but it is commentary on a press release and as such, none of the information on the company is Independent Content (clearly attributed etc) and fails WP:ORGIND. The fourth also fails since the information on the company is provided by information released by the company and quotations/interview with a director, Zeegers - therefore none of the information on the company is Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. There's an argument that the commentary on the legal troubles and subsequent appeal meets the criteria but in my opinion it doesn't. Also, doesn't matter a whit the "respectability" of journalists or newspapers once it is regarded as a reliable source. I was excited by the fifth (Book) reference but once you remove the information provided by the director Gelauff, there is nothing of significance remaining, fails WP:ORGIND. The sixth reference is entirely based on information provided by the company and fails WP:ORGIND. But there are a myriad of other sources such as Politics of Post Transformation, Franchising in the Economy 1978-1980, etc, which all have short but significant mentions of the company. This, coupled with the one good reference mentioned above, pushed it over the edge for me. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep quality sources exist. The Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad are some of the best Dutch newspapers, and the company, in some form or other, (it's complicated) has been around since 1868. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.