Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakota Watch Company


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Dakota Watch Company

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article has two sources: a PR piece, which by definition fails WP:ORGIND, and a "Retailer Profile" interview with a watch industry trade publication of unknown reliability, but which probably also fails WP:ORGIND. I spent over an hour looking for sources to satisfy WP:NCORP in Google Books and Google News archive. I searched NewsBank's newspaper archives. I even searched in a list of wrist watch blogs, which would be considered generally unreliable, just to see if anybody had reviewed one of this company's products. I used the current name and their two previous names in all my searches. I found absolutely no non-trivial coverage in any reliable source. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies,  and Ohio. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found a singular source on my own search,, which I doubt has a snowball's chance in hell of being compliant with any WP:NCORP policy. I think the nominator sums it up well here. — Sirdog (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unable to find non-trivial coverage in books or online. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2023 (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.