Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Time Gems


 * 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. listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Century Time Gems

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Minor Swiss watchmaker, the only references are catalogs. Swatch it ain't. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way interested financially or otherwise with the company nor with the family. As you can notice from my participation to wikipedia, I am interested in establishing articles expanding the information about the watch industry in general, and the Swiss watch industry in particular.

Please bear that in mind when proposing any deletion. In fact, Century may be a rather unknown brand and company to many, but the product it manufactures is based on the most advanced technologz in the field of scratchproof watches. This technology has been patented in the major industrial countries.

claude (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest has not been cited as a reason for deletion in this instance. Lack of notability, (which means, as you say, "may be a rather unknown brand and company to many," including those who would write about them as third-party reliable sources) has, and that's the problem you need to address. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I would tend to give this article the benefit of the doubt. If better sources can be found, it would be a fine article, since the Swiss watch industry is a pretty significant thing.  It could use cleanup of course....  Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. But it seems that this company was founded at the beginning of the end of the golden age of Swiss watchmaking, and this search returns bupkis. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It was founded on January 1966, at the abolition of the Horological Statute, which had prevented new comers into the industry since 1931. Klingenberg had already conceived the Vacuum Watch, which had been sold successfully by Glycine & Altus, a Swiss Watch Company that had a U.S. subsidiary in St. Louis. Vacuum was also sold under Private Labels, made not only in Stainless Steel, thungstene carbide, but also in polycristalline sapphire. 1971, when the value of the dollar was suddenly halved, the item could not sell anymore for double its previous retail price, facing also like the other Swiss makers the increased pressure of the Japanese, and vanished from the marketplace. ,

Century survived the important 1975-1985 downturn of the Swiss Watch Industry on its own, without any outside assistance, unlike the big companies agglomarated within the two big groups SSIH & ASUAG, through genuine pioneering invention and innovation.

Please help me finalizing this interested article, a piece of the history of the survival and "renaissance" of the Swiss watch industry.

Next week, when I am back home, I can search for more sources, as well as for the corresponding patents.

claude (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) claude (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some further sources and references to Hans-Urlich Klingenberg and his company Century Time Gems. Give me some more time and shall dig out the patent referred to and any further information needed. The company and the brand are not as yet of general public knowledge, but they are already well known within the circles of the watch industry as well as within the customers of luxury watches.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I'm not sure with the notability and reliability of sources in the watch industry, I'm not an expert, but I've found an article on Century Time Gems at the website of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH. Moreover, there is an article (p. 22) "Gold in Watchmaking" in the Guld Bulletin journal. This, together with some sources by User:Claude girardin assert sufficient notability for including, in my opinion. I'm not sure with informations at the World tempus.com webpage, it looks like a self-published public release. The article should be rewritten, it contains peacock terms and some of the sources are inappropriate for encyclopedia. However, I vote keep.  --Vejvančický (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This newbie editor has been jumped on for supposedly creating non-notable articles, but in the rush I wonder how many of the proposers of prods, speedies and AfDs have taken the time to take a step back and have a good look for sources? Century is certainly no Swatch, but we don't need watch manufacturers to be globally recognised brands in order to include them in Wikipedia. I found similiar sources to Vejvančický, e.g. this watch website,=10359&tx_contagged[key]=18] and a mention in National Geographic, and I think we can give Claude Girardin a bit more time in demonstrating notability before we think about deleting the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is notability and reliability of sources within the watch industry. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for better referencing. There is this rather substantial writeup. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2009 (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.