Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 27 December 2013

Bech-Bruun

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Bech-Bruun (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are WP:PRIMARY, trivial (a directory listing) or routine coverage (merger or office location). Googling turned up nothing useful. Misplaced Pages is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: An article from one of a country's largest newspapers which states that the firm after the merger rivals another firm's position as the largest in the industry in that country os a primary source? The source for revenues is copy-pasted from Misplaced Pages's own List of largest European law firms (excluding UK) (2012). I know that a Misplaced Pages page is never a relevant source but surely a source which is good enough for one article is also good enough for others, right? So shouldn't you pick on that list too then? Several smaller law firms on that list from comparable contries have articles. Looking through some categories of " law firms of XXX" from comparable countries, I see plenty of (poorly sourced) articles on law firms that are not are too small to be on that list. Based on that, I don't understand the grounds for questioning Bech-Bruun's notability. That is not to say that it is a particularly informative or well-sourced article, hence the stub tag. I can assure you that I have no interest in promoting anything here. I was simply tidying up Danish company categories and trying to get some missing ones started. Denmark was one of few comparable countries where not a single law firm was covered so covering a few of the largest ones seemed a sensible thing to do. I am not saying that size is the only criteria for establishing notability (U an aware that it isn't) but some of the other articles that I looked on about smaller firms certainly didn't make it clear what other criteria made that firm particularly notable. As for your unsuccessful google search, there are plenty of references to the company out there so I am not sure what you wanted to gind. If anything, this discussion should be of a more general character: Are to many similar firms covered? This firm is no more, no less notable than plenty of others.Ramblersen (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BIGNUMBER, "A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources."
And from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet."
Both of these are what we refer to WP:Arguments to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1) I do not agree that pointing out that a law firm is one of the largest (second largest) and most well-known in the industry in a particular country is a "Subject has X number of Y"-argument. I did not say that this firm is notable because it has x employees, y offices of revenues of z. I see a big difference here, perhaps you don't. 2) I did not say that this article should be kept because of what other articles are out there (I have already pointed out why I think it is notable), I simply pointed out that it would make sense to include other article in this discussion since I think you apply extremely restrictive criteria for notanility in this case tp get a more general discussion and a more consistant practice. So to make this point heard I should start mass-nominating law firm articles from other countries or what? I simply don't understand the basis for questioning the notability of this particular article. It would have been much more helpful if you had pointed out what sort of information would actually be able to establish notability, then I could try to provide it.Ramblersen (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. What it takes, as explained at WP:GNG, is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Each of those words has a specific meaning here on Misplaced Pages. Significant means it can't be a bunch of trivial mentions. Multiple means more than one. Reliable means the source as reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Independent means no connection to the subject. Secondary means that it contains the author's own thoughts, not merely a recitation of whatever the subject has published in, e.g., a press release. Individual editors may interpret these requirements differently but my sense is the gold standard is a couple 1000-word articles about the subject. We don't have that here. Hope that helps. Msnicki (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What GNG actually says is "multiple sources are generally expected" (emphasis added). "Generally", in ordinary language, means "most of the time but there might be exceptional cases". James500 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are exceptions, but we have guidance on what exceptions are allowed. See my earlier remark below re: WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• As regards GNG, "significant" is qualitative, not quantitative. A trivial mention is something like an entry in a phonebook or being cited as a source. GNG certainly does not require thousands of words, or anything approachingthat. Notability does not preclude the possibilityof merger into a broader topic, so length is not an issue in of itself in that regard. If this company is the second biggest law firm in Denmark, the worst case scenario is merger into, and redirectionto, a list of the biggest law firms or an article on law firms in Denmark or some supra-national area or something like that. James500 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

These are very helpful remarks explaining how we decide notability and how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one. It's also possible to request userfication if you'd like to continue working on the article while you look for sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"how a subject that isn't sufficiently notable to stand as separate article might be merged into another one" - No, what I said is that a topic can be notable, period, within the meaning of N and still end up being merged for other reasons. I infer from that that whether coverage is significanthas nothing to do with the number of column inches etc. A single sentence might be significantcoverage if what it says is sufficiently important, but it will only get a separate article if there is no suitable target for merger. James500 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That would have to be quite some sentence and I think I'd need to see it first. The exceptions would be matters of fact that we can accept in lieu of sources under the guidelines as creating a presumption of notability. For example, per WP:ATHLETE, any athlete who wins an Olympic medal is automatically notable, even if there are no sources beyond the official results. For alternate criteria that might apply to a law firm, please see WP:CORPDEPTH#Commercial organizations. Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating on the criteria for notability, Msnicki. What I don't get is why anyone would question that a law firm which is the second largest in a given country is able to meet the need for "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". There are numerous references to Bech Bruun in all major Danish media so I suppose only "significant' can be questioned. Here is a link to an analasis from Berlingske Media of the top 20 players in the Danish legal services industry. A search on FinanceWatch, an industry-based news service operated by JP/Politikens Hus, provides 30 pages of hits. Here are the 45 pages of hits on Dagbladet Børsen's (Denmark's leading business newspaper) website. By all means, all of these sources could contain only insignificant references to the firm, many no doubt do. But do you seriously doubt that plenty of them (as in multiple) contain information which could be used for an expansion of the current stub? Why would I want to request a userfication while I continue working on the article? I have no interestin writing a longer article about this firm, that is why I only made a stuch in the first place, something that I hardly ever do but Misplaced Pages condoles and is full of. As far as I have understood, it shouldn't take an expansion to stop a speedy deletion but just documention that the subject matter is notable. I have tried to do so and have already spend more time on this than I intended in the first place. And the initial speedy deletion-nominationøs claim that his stub is promotional and lacks reliable independent secondary sources is simply incorrect. All it does is to point out that Bech-Bruun is the second largest law firm in Denmark (in an attempt to document/indicate notability, I suppose the patient died), which does indeed follow from two independent, reliable sources (more than most stubs out there have) as well as Misplaced Pages's list of ] (where one of the references is apparently good enough or should it be tagged or nominated?).Ramblersen (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Size alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The essence of notability is not that people should take note, but that they do take note and that they do it in reliable independent sources, offering their own secondary thoughts. Msnicki (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The article currently cites Berlingske and Jyllands Posten, two of Denmark's main newspapers. Is the nominator contending that these are not reliable sources? Or that those citations can not count towards notability for some other reason? So far as I can tell from my effectively non-existent knowledge of Danish, the coverage in the Berlingske article cited looks substantial enough to count towards notability, while the Jyllands Posten one, while slightly more than a passing mention, only helps very slightly towards notability. To the defenders of the article - can you find a couple more independent reliable sources that discuss Bech-Bruun in as much, or preferably more, detail as the Berlingske one? And, please, specific ones - just presenting other editors with search pages of results in a language most of us don't understand doesn't really help us come to a decision. PWilkinson (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the newspaper sources is not reliability. The problem is that they offer only routine or trivial coverage and lack any secondary analysis. Did you try reading them with Google translate?
The Berlingske article (translated) reports only that the subject merged with another firm. The only quotes are from a managing partner of one firm and the chairman of the other. No additional analysis is given. This looks to me like routine coverage of the subject's press release, the reporter probably doing little more than trimming for length but happy to have a byline. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". And from WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Without that secondary analysis, this is still a WP:PRIMARY source.
The Jyllands-Posten article (translated) is even less helpful. It's not even about the subject, it's about a hotel chain taking space in an apartment building. The only mention of the subject is a single sentence mentioning that the subject will be moving into the building's upper floors. This is the essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have (in vain) tried to ask for what sort of information would qualify as "non-trivial" in the eyes of those who question Bech-Bruun's notability. Most recently, the firm has received a lot of attention in Danish media after a DR documentary criticized a partner's involvement tax evasion. Here is an article which most definitely won't be based on a press release from the firm. Here is another critical article about the firm (from 2007) which won't be based on any press releases either. There are plenty of articles that document the firm's dominant position in the Danish market for legal services. I have added two references to the article's lead that descripes it as part of the "BIG Four" in Denmark. This analasis of the top 20 law firms in Denmark will also provide various details on Bech-Bruun's position but access to the analasis proper requires payment. I know that size in itself is not enough but a dominant market position within a fairly high-profile industry such as legal services (we are not talking a wholeseller of plastic boxes) should imo indicate notability. Lawyers from the firm are consistently referred to as "top attorneys" (topadvokater) in Danish media, see for instance here and here (critical) and here (critical). Here is a portrait of the firm's managing partner, Randi Bech-Poulsen, referring to her as the "attorney's first lady". Needless to say that attorneys from such a big and high-profile firm is involved in plenty of high-profile cases if that is of relevance. article is about the opening of an office in Shanghai and the strategy behind it.] (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't tried in vain to ask. I've answered. What you've tried in vain to do is offer up sources that I don't believe meet our guidelines for reasons I've cited. But different editors will have different takes on the matter. I'm just one. Perhaps others will join the discussion and there will be a WP:CONSENSUS to keep, over my objection.
I did look at these additional cites. 1 is about a new attorney who got into trouble providing tax advice in a DR broadcast; the subject comes up only because he works there (but it doesn't sound like he did this on their time) and the only reporting about the subject is long verbatim quote from the subject. 2 is about one of the partners being found to have breached professional ethics. This is weak but borderline per WP:ONEEVENT. Some editors might go for this. 3 is one sentence stating (vaguely) that the subject is growing. 4 is about one of the partners, not about the subject, except to say he works there. 5 talks about the Nielsen case and about the subject. This one is a possible. 6 adds nothing useful. 7 is about a female attorney who works there, not about the subject. 8 is about the subject's expansion to Shanghai. This is better than the merger story but still appears to have likely been written from the subject's press release. (Notice there are no quotes from anyone but the one managing partner.)
Other editors may go for this. I think it's still a bit weak. Let's see what others say. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: While it may not be a vanity entry, it certainly reads like one. The otherwise RS sources simply contain incidental mentions of subject. DocumentError (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The entire discussion here is obviously based on the nominator's lack of familiarity with Danish sources. First of all, the firm is mentioned here in Den Store Danske, Denmark's most reliable encyclopaedia. Second, a quick search on Danish library sources turns up a long list of books:

https://www.bibliotek.dk/da/search/work/Bech-Bruun?sort=date_descending&qe=year_eq&page_id=bibdk_frontpage#content

in which Bech-Bruun either contributes to the authoring or appears in discussion of legal matters of one kind or another. I fully agree with Ramblersen that it is important to include this firm in EN Misplaced Pages. When reading books about Denmark, I often consult Misplaced Pages to find background on the firms or authors mentioned. I imagine there must be many more like me. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be no difficulty in expanding on the article from reliable sources but a start needs to be made somewhere. Please allow the article's creator to continue with his valuable work. In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the firm's notability, even in regard to Misplaced Pages's criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would accept an actual article in an encyclopedia as a suitable source for establishing notability. But that's not what we have here. The Den Storee Danske page is obviously a wiki page. Notice the anonymous individuals listed as having created or edited the page. Wiki pages, even on otherwise suitable sites, are considered questionable sources and do not count towards notability per WP:USERGENERATED. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Over 6000 hits in google books alone, obviously more than meets GNG. Actually one of Europe's biggest law firms it seems, google turns up nothing?? Really??? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS is what we consider an argument to avoid. The fact that something turns up lots of hits on Google cannot be used to establish notability. We require specific sources. If there's a specific book you found through Google that you think we should accept, post the link and we can discuss it. But just lots of hits is not enough.
The link you did give is to a directory listing, which is not helpful in establishing notability. From WP:CORPDEPTH, "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, says who? The most important thing is that article subjects have wide coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that google books has so many potential sources immediately makes this a legitimate article. If you seriously think otherwise you have no place editing wikipedia. This doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, again there should be better research done before posting AfDs, this firm is clearly notable (any firm with 70+ million Euro revenue is definately notable). --Soman (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. A WP:BIGNUMBER is not enough to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break because this page is so long that I am having real difficulty editing it

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. The sources are not just in Danish either. There are books in English which discuss this firm such as The European Legal 500 by Pritchard. James500 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The only Legal 500 listing I could find appears to be merely a directory listing, which is not helpful in establishing notability, again per WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I was referring to this series of books. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Hmm. This AfD has languished for 5 days, then suddenly it gets 4 keeps, all offering non-guidelines-based reasons in less than 2 hours? This looks suspiciously like WP:Canvassing. Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, has it occurred to you that several of us watch each other's edits?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you I wasn't born yesterday? Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I got here through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law. James500 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates