Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delma (Swiss watchmaker)


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Delma (Swiss watchmaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NORG, the only coverage I could find online (or in the article's references) is in industry-PR outlets which are not RS (I searched in English, German, and French). In 2017, the subject competed for the Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Geneve but did not win. signed,Rosguill talk 22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Did find some proper coverage of Delma in one site (https://monochrome-watches.com/delma-blue-shark-ii-3000m-dive-watch-hands-on-price/), but little else. The brand has been around since 1924 apparently according to a website that described its Baselworld entry. Still, don't believe it really meets WP:NORG either. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include: Brand and company have been around for over 90 years, there's a lot of coverage in Swiss Newspapers (in German) on the brand, it is also part of key institutions of the swiss watch industry. Based on the argument of not finding much online other than industry outlets would lead to the deletion of many entries in the swiss watch brand category. Should have a common ground based on which brands should feature or not in the category. Drew17 LnG (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drew17 LnG (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Could you provide citations to, or better yet, scans of the coverage in Swiss newspapers? I'm fluent in German so translation isn't an issue. Offline sources are fair game, but we need to be able to verify and evaluate them. signed,Rosguill talk 19:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Press coverage in German appears significant. See in particular this article. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Solothurner Zeitung article appears significant, as well as this piece in Grenchner Tagblatt. The only caveats are that both of these appear to be local papers owned by the same publishing company, and I'm thus unsure whether or not they qualify as sufficiently reliable, per ORGCRITE's audience criteria: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.. A lot of the other hits on the google news search appear to have only matched "Uhr", as opposed to "Delma" and thus don't appear to actually be coverage of the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 20:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just be aware that while an article may appear to be "significant", it must also be "intellectually independent" - see WP:ORGIND and the section on "Dependent coverage". As such, the Solothurner Zeitung is classic churnalism, based on information provided by the company and supported by interview/quotations from owners. Now that (hopefully) you see the pattern, the Grenchner Tagblatt article fails for the same reasons. WP:NCORP was tightened up earlier this year to specifically exclude these types of pseudo-neutral churnalistic references.  HighKing++ 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of this company. References either fail to provide in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH or are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:ORG; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2018 (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.