Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torgoen Swiss


 * 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 no consensus. S warm  ♠  01:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Torgoen Swiss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article needs to be rewritten. There are news mentions about the company but none from reliable, notable sources. Fails notability requirement. CerealKillerYum (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Article needs to be rewritten" is not grounds for deletion, but lack of notability is, and I could find no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about this company.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Citations: I've added some cites from websites like WSJ and Esquire magazine which add notability to the page.Juanparve (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sourcing efforts. I don't think this will be enough to change the notability analysis.  Two of the four offered sources are press releases, which do not contribute to notability.  The other two are better.  I myself am a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal "Tech Essentials" column, and it's a legitimate namecheck, but ultimately it's just Richard Branson mentioning that he has one, "because I just thought it had a pretty face".   This leaves the Esquire column, which is a bit more substantive than the others: five sentences and a photo.  If there were several more independent articles with at least that much coverage in major magazines and newspapers, the calculus might start to swing; as it is, I don't think there's enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Notability: There are mentions of the brand in WSJ, esquire and USA Today which in my eyes do contribute to the notability of the brand, even if the WSJ piece is about Richard Branson, the fact that he mentions the brand in an interview serves the cause. A paragraph regarding a recent debate about smartwatches vs. traditional watches was added as well. The brand founder was quoted in USA today and wrote a piece himself on the subject on The Next Web. Juanparve (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:17, 24 July 2015 (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.