Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches


 * 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 Delete. Once the strings have been cut from the marionettes, all that remains are well-founded arguments in favor of deletion as non-notable advertising with no encyclopedic coverage. bd2412 T 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob's Watches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find sources to see it meets WP:ORG Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete It's a advertising article, which diminishes WP purpose. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep talk 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure spam; almost a candidate for G11 speedy. Absolutely nothing found at Google News Archive. I deleted a couple of spammy external links. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the page can be improved and revised w/ WP:NPOV content. I found a few references for this page that appear to be valid 3rd party sources:
 * 1


 * 2
 * Ktwestside (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your last url says at the bottom "Sponsored by Bob’s Watches" - not a valid source. The Orange County Register is IMHO too local to be used. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with the comment below; The Orange County Register is an absolutely legitimate regional Newspaper. It was founded in 1905 & and has won several Pulitzer prizes; the author who took up the subject of Rolex Watches is a career journalist with well-established credentials:
 * See The Orange County Register - Ktwestside (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Please review your sources more thoroughly. The OC Register isn't a local paper. It's the 19th largest paper in the country by circulation. They've won a Pulitzer Prize as well. Their mention is definitely notable for their size. Their circulation is 280,000. That's far beyond a "local" paper. I live in a small town with a local paper. The circulation is 10,000. Those numbers make it a local paper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:POTENTIAL WP:NOTIMELIMIT Rolex is a subject that will always garner interest and have an audience; coupled with the unique platform of this company, I think there's solid reason to keep and/or save this page. Also, a search for valid sources produced this reference Rodesywiki (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Rodesywiki (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment That's a sales site so irrelevant to notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I also agree with keeping this page. Strong points were made above that Rolex is indeed a subject most people will be interested in, and the page can definitely be improved to a point that no one will even consider deletion an option for it. I think deleting this page would be too hasty of a move, especially if it can be fixed up a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)  — Cathron (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I feel that if companies such as Microsoft can have wikipedia pages, then why not smaller companies such as Bob's Watches? MarieMayer (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — mariemayer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Because we have criteria for notability at WP:ORG, which starts by saying "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Everyone !voting here should read it. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Because we expect organisation to fulfill the criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete - absolutely a breach of WP:NOTPROMO and the sock/meat-spam above in addition to the WP:OSE arguments gives that game plan away. The suggestion that an enterprise like this gains notability from the Rolex watches they sell is a complete fallacy. That's like suggesting I'm notable because I had a Coke today. One piece of local news coverage isn't anywhere near enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Really a bit surprised this was re-listed given the total lack of policy value from "team keep". Stalwart 111  05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - One of the fastest ways into getting an article deleted is to sock on an AfD nomination; in addition, sources largely fail WP:V. Falls well short of WP:ORG. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 05:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A firm going about its business, but not encyclopaedic. The Orange County Register article is the nearest to a WP:RS but inclusion in a feature article is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and to balance out the puppetfarm up there. I'm also surprised that this was relisted. Ansh666 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Indeed, looking back, the relisting was a bit unnecessary. I've requested closure at WP:AN/RFC. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.