Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Blue
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. causa sui (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Global Blue
- Global Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability, just passing mentions and primary sources, fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks notable to me. It belongs to the mighty Barclays, who's about to sell it for over a billion dollars. The Financial Times has mentioned it in Jan., Feb., and June of this year. Being quoted in FT as a financial expert means something. This from AFP makes Global Blue sound very notable:
- Duty-free specialist says Chinese tourist spending soars
- (AFP) – 1 day ago
- PARIS — Chinese travellers nearly doubled their spending on tax-free goods in 2010 to 1.3 billion euros ($1.84 billion), tax-free transaction specialist Global Blue said Tuesday.
- The firm, owned by Barclays Private Equity and a leader in processing duty-free purchases, said in a statement that in the 12 months to March it handled 16.3 million traveller transactions, up 29 percent, and 5.7 million currency transactions, up 4.2 percent.
- Seems to me that at the very least Global Blue should be tucked into our Barclays article. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adding "tax free" to the search terms helps disambiguate, since "global" and "blue" are such common words online. This article from the ]
- keep, just added sale info under recent events. This article just needs more sources, and believe me they're out there. -BETA 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a superabundance of sources: 16 cites and 23 external links. Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, half of them are primary sources from Global Blue itself. Most of the rest simply mention Global Blue in passing, regarding their expertise in finance and tax-free shopping markets. It needs more Tertiary sources reporting on Global Blue specifically. --BETA 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in the nomination. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured by major travel guide. An article by another travel guide printed both by ABC News and USA Today. Another travel guide. Another. Another. Along with the quote in AFP and the mentions in FT, plus the value of the company, I'm convinced Global Blue is notable. It seems to be a niche business--a large, important, world-wide, notable one--that maybe a only small percentage but still large number of world travelers is aware of. It seems and financial and travel advisors are fully aware of it. Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to understand what substantial coverage means - one line mentions in travel guides do not count. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I do not understand; any tutoring on my talk page would be welcome. My interpretation of Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material means that when FT quotes Global Blue as an authority, it gives it notability. My interpretation of The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources means mention in every international guide I've consulted "adds up" to sigcov. In other words, just one wouldn't hack it, but half a dozen do. Also, the article here is entirely about Global Blue.
- Meanwhile, may I suggest to the editor who created the Global Blue article that s/he insert it into the one on Barclays, where its inclusion would not be debated. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to understand what substantial coverage means - one line mentions in travel guides do not count. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured by major travel guide. An article by another travel guide printed both by ABC News and USA Today. Another travel guide. Another. Another. Along with the quote in AFP and the mentions in FT, plus the value of the company, I'm convinced Global Blue is notable. It seems to be a niche business--a large, important, world-wide, notable one--that maybe a only small percentage but still large number of world travelers is aware of. It seems and financial and travel advisors are fully aware of it. Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in the nomination. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, half of them are primary sources from Global Blue itself. Most of the rest simply mention Global Blue in passing, regarding their expertise in finance and tax-free shopping markets. It needs more Tertiary sources reporting on Global Blue specifically. --BETA 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a superabundance of sources: 16 cites and 23 external links. Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules (talk • contribs) 03:20, 24 July 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.