Deletion of Bruna (company)

Comment: This one is on the edge but in my opinion just about meets the criteria as per /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  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, https://research.hanze.nl/ws/files/27073228/MO0304_2017_pp_98_118.pdf the first reference discussing a conceptual model for Bruna meets the criteria. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/11/18/bruna-en-ako-moederbedrijf-audax-gaan-samen-verder-a3980782 The second is based on an announcement and therefore fails . https://web.archive.org/web/20200111020754/https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/bruna-overgenomen-door-moederbedrijf-van-concurrent-ako~bc068e8a/ 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 . https://web.archive.org/web/20200111020754/https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/bruna-wil-meer-brunaformule-zien~b0ef8755/ 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 . 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 https://books.google.com/books?id=eBbgtZO4To4C the fifth (Book) reference but once you remove the information provided by the director Gelauff, there is nothing of significance remaining, fails . The https://www.nu.nl/economie/4466895/aandeelhouders-postnl-en-ing-schieten-bruna-hulp.html sixth reference is entirely based on information provided by the company and fails . But there are a myriad of other sources such as https://books.google.com/books?id=etzMcbw1TWwC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=bruna+largest+franchise&source=bl&ots=iCS8lVQXol&sig=ACfU3U355Wemy4xaNgxrGw4qOoU_YAGWVA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi67NmStqvnAhUCSxUIHQJjDkYQ6AEwEnoECA0QAQ Politics of Post Transformation, https://books.google.ie/books?id=BPjERDrueZQC 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: WP:AGF|assuming good faith, this appears to be a large retail chain that passes . It's written in a neutral tone, and has some sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)