Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesag 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. Shimeru (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pesag Watch Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Mentioned in the article itself that there are no hits online, but might be a notable watch company, so nominating. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Watchmakers. It appears the author of the article didn't even intend to create an article - merely to suggest that the information be put in the Watchmakers article. I'll drop them a note encouraging them to be bold and do it themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought the Watchmakers article doesn't seem to be the place to talk about individual watchmakers. I'll do a little more looking, I have a feeling (from the number of watches being sold online as collectors items) that this company may have been notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was, but I can't find the evidence in Google or Google Books. Changing my vote to Delete but would gladly change back if anyone can find anything to base it on. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete (a7) This is pure advertising, no doubt about it. It is advancing the cause of a non-notable small company, and may possibly have been authored by someone affiliated with the company. Account that created the article is a single purpose account that has only two edits: the creation and one other to this article. Dew Kane (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's hard to see how it can be advertising, or created by "someone affiliated with the company," since the company appears to have been out of business for decades. All online references are to the sale of used watches, often treated as collector's items. --MelanieN (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong delete no coverage. . LibStar (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2010 (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.