Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubus


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cubus

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

Contested PROD - no significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources as required by WP:CORP. pablo hablo. 08:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At first glance, this company appears to be non-notable. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this company. A Google News search returns very few reliable sources. However, the external links in this article establish this company's notability per WP:CORP. There is an article from moda.hr (translated version), an article from story.hr (translated version), and an article from vjesnik.hr (translated version). Cunard (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except - I don't think that the references amount to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". One fashion/lifestyle advertising feature (moda), one lifestyle piece in a lifestyle newspaper about a showroom opening (story) and one (1) actual news article from a daily newspaper. It is interesting to note that this article has now been deleted from the Croatian Wikipedia three times - twice as advertising (this version was a straight copy of a company brochure) and the third time being "inappropriate content" (deletion log). The third version was identical to the one we have here in English. If these watches are not notable in Croatia, I'm sure they are not in the rest of the world. pablo hablo. 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All 3 of the above sources are independent of this company. They were written by lifestyle reporters, who have no connection with the company. Cubus watches is the sole subject of all three articles. How is this not "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? I don't understand why the Croatian Wikipedia deleted a sourced article, and I want to prevent the English Wikipedia from doing likewise. The sources in this article are enough for the company to pass A7 and WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard. Ikip (talk) 00:52, 18 April 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.