Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AaB A/S

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. Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AaB A/S[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability, no coverage showing up. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit agnostic on deletion (I was the admin who removed the speedy tag though), but in the article's defence:
- The firm is publicly listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange
- The firm has an annual revenue of >250 million Danish kroner, or almost 50 million US dollars
- As is evident from the template in the footer, it is the parent company of Aalborg Boldspilklub, which seems obviously notable

Can't see why this wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of these are in WP:CORP. The paragraph at WP:LISTED doesn't say listing on a stock exchange guarantees notability. And the parent company can't "inherit" notability from the team it owns. The turnover is respectable but not notable - you dno't have to pass too many car dealerships before you've hit $50 million in annual sales. Put a couple of lines in the team's article describing the parent company, if we must; but the comany fails the guidelines in WP:CORP. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORP for notability and significant coverage. The company owns 3 professional sports teams and the largest chain of sports retailers in Denmark of more than 100 stores. Although the article is bare-boned, it has potential to be edited and expanded given the significant coverage of the company in Danish business news. A brief search of the national press found dozens of articles, for example [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the first editor of this article, I can say that I have used an annual report as source, because it is very reliable. It is reliable because the information is verified by the Danish taxation authorities as well as the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. Other sources are always good and are improving the article, which already have been done. Other arguments why this article is notable have already been mentioned by user CactusWriter.--Patchfinder (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article still is considered for deleting, please also consider deleting this article Parken Sport & Entertainment. And please make a note that says "parent companies in the Danish sports/entertainment business are not notable".--Patchfinder (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, it's got multiple independent sources. An annual is not an independent source- its self-published. Where are the independent sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would really improve this discussion, if you start reading what I write instead of being ignorant. An annual report is off course not independent, but it can be very reliable if the information is verified. User:CactusWriter has added independent sources to the article, which means it now has reliable and independent sources. --Patchfinder (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Wtshymanski? "Where are the independent sources?" Please explain why the included cites to Berlingske Tidende newspaper, Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Børsen A/S financial news, Ritzau news agency, etc. are not independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The added references from independent sources demonstrate to coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fed the first 3 sources provided by CactusWriter into google translate and all 3 appear to be significant coverage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2011 (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.