Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruker

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruker

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This American subsiduary has been flagged for sourcing issues since 2009. I can't find any substantial news coverage online apart from press releases and reports about its share value. Maybe its German parent company is notable, but this US subsiduary seems not to meet WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Bloomberg Businessweek it is publicly traded on NASDAQ, has 6000 employees, 2011 revenue is $1.7 billion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these figures for the parent company, Bruker Corporation? The current article is confusing because it seems to describe the scientific division of Bruker and describes Bruker Corporation as its parent. Maybe the article should be re-written to describe the worldwide Bruker Corporation? Either way, I can't see how the information can be verified at the moment. If it was clear what the subject was and I could find one in-depth, independent news source I wouldn't bother nominating it. Sionk (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:N, wp:notability has nothing to do with an article being confusing.
Bloomberg's business depends on their database being reliable.
"Bruker Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Billerica, Massachusetts."
[site:investing.businessweek.com bruker] alone has 380 pages that mention Bruker, and the first page of hits is mostly dedicated articles with in-depth independent reliable information. Unscintillating (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know what the subject is, how can we decide it is notable or not? Sionk (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NASDAQ stock name and that the company is headquartered in Billerica and has the name "Bruker Corporation" is objective information as to what this topic is. The home page of the company website ties the name "Bruker" to "Bruker Corporation". There is information at [1] that interrelates various of these "Bruker" companies–I'm not seeing that there is more than one topic. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A publicly traded corporation doing more than $1B in business is well over the inclusion bar, in my opinion, under WP:MORETHANBIGENOUGHFORANARTICLE. Title of the piece may need to be tweaked. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - there seems to be a consensus that the article is about the parent company, not a subsiduary. I will reword the article to make this clear. Sionk (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2012 (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.