Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QWSTION


 * 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. The initial comments leaned towards keeping the article on WP:GNG grounds, which were challenged by later comments. After the sources were discussed in-depth, there seems to be a rough consensus that the article does not meet WP:GNG, and the arguments that the article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NCORP appear to be largely unchallenged. Aoidh (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

QWSTION

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

Created by someone with a strong COI and was slipped through due to WP:APAT. Obviously a marketing article and has no place on Wikipedia. Its product, Bananatex (again very promotional), may meet the notabilitly criteria. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion,  and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be a number of sources available on the company as well as Bananatex. Here's some examples:
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Though the article is indeed promotional. I suggest removing all photos and outright deleting the sections "Design", "Collaborations", "Products", "Production", "Distribution, and "Legal". The only things that should be kept are the History and Awards sections, since they have relevant and notable information. All photos removed though, of course. Silver  seren C 01:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that the references support notability. I have removed the images and some of the text as it was overly promotional. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: clearly notable and no evidence of the claimed COI has been given. At least some of the images are worthy of keeping in the article, too (and that is being discussed on the its page). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well-sourced and meets WP:GNG. A reminder: accusations of COI need to be supported by evidence. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I will share my analysis soon. But in case if it is kept then I would suggest to rename it to Qwstion (current one is a stylized title). US-Verified (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite from scratch as an actual encyclopaedic article, rather than the unambiguous advertisement it currently is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: None of the sources posted here or in the article appear to be WP:NCORP sources. A product review doesn't make the company notable, that's NCORP 101. Does anyone have two NCORP sources... sources that are about the company, not reviews of one of its products? Levivich (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Levivich here. None of this stuff passes NCORP, and they are exactly the kind of sources that are why we have NCORP to explain what is significant coverage for companies and products. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete article about a non-notable company, failing WP:NCORP, seeing how not even a single source meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles about companies have to pass WP:ORGCRIT to meet GNG; they can't bypass these criteria. The sources used in the article are examples of trivial coverage, and/or are non-independent, and/or fail WP:INHERITORG as they deal primarily with the product, not primarily with the company. —Alalch E. 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be the depth required for CORPDEPTH, ?
 * Founded in Zurich in 2008 on the principle that a good answer is the result of a good question, Qwstion has set itself the objective, through a timeless design, to focus on functionality and the use of sustainable materials.


 * With, in mind, bags. In backpack, tote or travel version. Unisex, in organic cotton or other ecological materials, they are designed as practical and versatile accessories, capable of being transformed into backpacks for riding a bike when leaving the office. All are developed in Zurich, and manufactured in Asia and Europe in accordance with high ethical and environmental standards.


 * After Zurich, Vienna and Copenhagen, it was in Lausanne that the brand opened its own store last month. This space of 4 meters high under ceiling is minimalist, to highlight the products and the descriptions of the creative process.


 * In addition to its own collections, the store displays a selection of products designed by brands that share the same requirements in terms of quality, sustainability and responsible production: the ready-to-wear brand Laboratoire, based in Lausanne; the Swedish wax producers Stutterheim; the casual wear Folk of London; A Kind of Guise, which produces a limited number of clothes in Germany; or the Zurich jewelry brands Kinsfolk and Soeder organic soaps, as well as the Raawii ceramics from Copenhagen and the writing tools from Y Studio, from Taiwan.


 * The Lausanne store also wants to serve as a promotion platform for local designers, in collaboration with the Ecole cantonale d'art de Lausanne (ECAL), where Qwstion's artistic director, Christian Paul Kägi, taught.
 * This is just one of the sources I presented above. Silver  seren C 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's this. An announcement of a shop opening in Lausanne. Please see: Notability (organizations and companies) --> standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ... of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops ... It is an example of trivial coverage. Also, please don't take this the wrong way, but you basically copivio'd that article by copying that large of a machine-translated portion of it here. —Alalch E. 17:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen people copy text like that from articles before in discussions, as have I before and no one's brought it up, so I'm not sure if that's an issue, but I can remove it if you want.
 * Fair enough, what about the El Pais article covering the history of the company? That doesn't seem like routine coverage. Otherwise, literally all coverage of companies would fall under that definition. There's similar such coverage from NZZ Bellevue and 20 Minutes. Silver  seren C 17:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All three of those are promotional. They're all basically product reviews. None really go into any real depth about the company. Questions unanswered: who owns the company? How much in annual sales? What's year-over-year growth been like since its founding? What controversies or challenges has it encountered? (Notice how none of those articles say anything negative about the company at all.) Who are its main competitors? Who are its suppliers? Does it have any patents for its new technology? How many employees does it have? Levivich (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Kägi and his fellow student Fabrice Aeberhard founded their company ten years ago together with Sebastian Kruit, Matthias Graf and Hannes Schoenegger.
 * Literally in the articles I linked. And, funny enough, if I keep reading down the article, I answer another of your questions:
 * The early success of the bags soon enabled the Qwstion team to develop their own textiles - with the organic cotton fabric, from which almost the entire production consists today, marking a first milestone around seven years ago.
 * The cotton is processed in a factory in Huizhou, not far from Hong Kong, which creates a good logistical starting point for international sales. Qwstion brought the network that the founding members brought with them from previous projects to China.
 * And further down I see:
 * The concepts and prototypes are created on Badenerstrasse in Zurich, which are then made ready for production in China.
 * And that's all just from one article. Silver  seren C 17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That first sentence says who founded it, not who owns it. Those are two different things. "The cotton is processed in a factory in Huizhou" doesn't say who their suppliers are, heck it doesn't even say what the source of the cotton is. What is "the network"? These quotes do not answer the questions I've posed. Still unknown: who owns it, how much in annual sales, year-over-year growth, controversies/challenges, competitors, suppliers, patents, how many employees. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Handelsblatt has some of this.. 25 employees in 2017, sales in single-digit-millions, largest external investor is Dieter Meier. "Qwstion sells its bags and accessories through its online shop, four of its own stores in Switzerland, Denmark and Austria, and over 200 retailers in 25 countries." That's some good company detail, some WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, it's in a trade publication, so no WP:ORGIND. What we're looking for is two or more sources that have the CORPDEPTH of Handelsblatt and the ORGIND (and WP:AUD) of El Pais. They have to be in the same sources, and there have to be multiple sources like that. That's what makes WP:NCORP an intentionally tough bar to hit. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflict: I was about to bring up the Handelsblatt article. And it's not a trade publication, where are you getting that from? Handelsblatt is a newspaper, with a focus on business news. So like Bloomberg and Business Insider. But those aren't trade publications. Silver  seren C 18:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would consider Bloomberg Businessweek (but not Bloomberg News), Business Insider, Handelsblatt, and other business newspapers, to be trade publications, like the American City Business Journals. These are publications that routinely promote new businesses. It's a form of churnalism. I might be wrong about Handelsblatt being in that group; I'm going off of our Wikipedia article, and that "Handelsblatt" means "commercial paper" in German. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Their other publication, Wirtschaftswoche, would be more an example of what you're talking about. Handelsblatt, meanwhile, is more of a regular newspaper, just with a higher focus on economic news. Look at their front page. The prime articles right now are about the French protests and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The section options at the top include Politics, Technology, and Finance, among others. Silver  seren C 18:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's almost all business news on their front page. The article about French protests is actually about France's economic policy (the headline: "How France benefits from Macron's reforms - and overtakes Germany: The President faces a lot of anger because of his pension reform. France is doing better economically than it has for a long time - thanks to Macron, say economists."). Yes, it has a live blog about the Ukraine war. But "Russian oligarch grabs Greek ports" is business news. "The federal government and the EU Commission settle disputes over combustion engines" is business news. That's the top 4 stories I see on their front page right now. Next I see three "Reader favorites": about investments, growth stocks, and real estate market. Next, "How Switzerland's business model is eroding". Next, "Credit gambled away: Why the banking crises don't end". Seems like business news.
 * Anyway, even if we agree that this is one NCORP source, which I really don't, is there a second? Levivich (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't even know what company we are talking about. This company likes to advertise itself as a Swiss brand to increase brand value (old phenomenon), but it's distinctly an Austrian company, with headquarters in Austria. There is not a Swiss company with QWSTION in its name founded in 2008. The company that this article is about is the Austrian QWSTION International GmbH, and the company website supports this; this company was indeed founded in 2008. The Swiss QWSTION AG was founded in 2011. Another Swiss company, Iconic Product Intelligence GmbH was founded by a dutch citizen in 2007, and much later became QWSTION Schweiz GmbH. All three companies exist today. Schönegger is the CEO os the Austrian company (included in the article and sourced), but Handelsblatt talks about a Swiss company—which of the two? But does it really—or does it in fact talk about the Austrian company, but calls it a Swiss company because it was fed that information? Does one of the two Swiss companies employ 25 workers—or the Austrian one? The headquarters of QWSTION AG is a house. 25 people aren't employed there. The headquarters of QWSTION Schweiz GmbH is the Zürich store; it's likely that QWSTION Schweiz GmbH is about owning and operating the store. The Austrian company registered headquarters corresponds to a nice, real, hq building (the awareded wooden building). Ultimately: We don't have enough reliable material to work with. —Alalch E. 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know that - seems likely they're on Wikipedia for promotional purposes too. US-Verified (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 20 Minutes' article is most likely paid (check the byline, "von
 * cls", we don't know much about the writer). Other article is by Bellevue by NZZ (I don't know much about this new sub-publication but it seems promotional, so won't consider it as WP:SIGCOV. Bellevue's article is written by David Streiff Corti - not an established journalist. US-Verified (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Promotional  // Timothy :: talk  17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the El Pais article and it's strongly promotional. ... The embryonic idea was intended to answer questions such as: how to contribute to a more sustainable world using our competence and experience, how to design versatile and durable basics with no expiration date, how to make functional needs aesthetic, how to act being profitable with responsibility towards nature and the community, how we can make our learning accessible and let others join our progress, what really matters, With this starting point they were launched with conviction and have been designing and developing travel bags and backpacks for daily use for 14 years with a discreet appearance and a low environmental impact. ..." Just becomes worse after that, talks about Bananatex, and includes quotes from the company people. Paid. —Alalch E. 17:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you're claiming any news article in a major newspaper that uses any form of flowery language when discussing a company is paid? Do you have anything to base this paid article claim on or are you just making it up from your opinion? Silver  seren C 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming this. But articles that contain flowery language must not consist exclusively or predominantly of flowery language which is the case here. This is evidence of promotion, taken together with how the journalist apparently flew from Spain to Switzerland to talk to company people: Did the newspaper pay for his ticket so that he could write a litany of positive things about some bag company? NCORP says, when explaining what "trivial" means in the context: other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization . There has to be commentary, discussion, analysis, evaluation, not just praise / promotional fluff language.—Alalch E. 18:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Author's bio: "He is the author of the novels 'Los Baldrichs', 'La estación perdida', 'Los buenos amigos' or 'Jauja' and the travel book 'Paris'. His narrative work has won several awards. He is a professor at the Sciences Po University in Paris. As a journalist he was awarded the Pica d'Estat Award in 2011. He collaborates in El Ojo Crítico of RNE and in EL PAÍS. 'Verso suelto' is his latest novel" I'd assume good faith and consider this as a genuine coverage. He is interested in travel topics and has written similar articles like . US-Verified (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: On one hand, I understand the arguments that the article should be kept because the subject meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, I can appreciate the arguments that the article should be deleted because the subject doesn’t have WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and CORP, sources in article and BEFORE show nothing but PROMO, PRIMARY, ROUTINE, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. The Keep votes BEFORE shows this has no IS RS with SIGCOV, just promo.  // Timothy :: talk  17:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that all coverage of companies, such as Fast Company and Handelsblatt, counts as PROMO. Since you looked at the sources and did BEFORE, as you said, you're referring to those articles as such. Interesting stance. Should we just delete all company articles then? Silver  seren C 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Silverseren, with respect, both of them are not about the company. Fast Company's article discusses Bananatex (which is notable in my opinion - just have to fix its promotional tone) and Handelsblatt's article is about the founder of the company and Bananatex. US-Verified (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of *the company*. Also worth highlighting, it appears a number of Keep !votes appear to confuse notability of the company with notability of Bananatex.  HighKing++ 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * delete no demonstration of notability for company, (who's competence in spelling "QWSTION" is questionable) selling cheap looking canvas bags at outrageous prices to customers who believe the hype around "bananatex" and the supposed ethical and environmental benefits it conveys to the environmentally concious customer. It's a lot more complicated than that! The Marketeers have done a fine job. Roxy the dog 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP. We can do an analysis of the references to show how it fails that policy.   scope_creep Talk  17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:05, 2 April 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.