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. A merge has been briefly mentioned as a possible solution, this should be discussed on the article talk page per the usual procedure if anyone wants to try that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanowa[edit]

Hanowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional Puccetto (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not demonstrated. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By referring twice to the company's main page the information was very scarce, but multiple external sources have now been added. Kareldorado (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of them is independent source, and it mentions hanowa only in three words, one of them 'hanowa'. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't the sources Solothurner Zeitung and Die Weltwoche (and now also Moneyhouse) all independent? Kareldorado (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Press-releases are not independent regardless media. Zeitung article is not about hanowa and mentions it in two words. Weltwoche is a promo article by CEO of Hanowa. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it is not a promo article BY, but an interview WITH the CEO. However, I do get your point. Thanks for the commentary. Kareldorado (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if it were a promo, the only information that I take out of it is the tiny fact that he is the CEO. Kareldorado (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Promotional"??? In no way, the brands have been praised for their quality in this article up to this moment. Kareldorado (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • <chuck-chuck giggle-giggle> Obviously you are not of advertising business or schooling. You may want to read about Product placement and about the place of wikipedia in the info world. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. BTW, you shot yourself in the leg, colleague, with this remark. :-) If there is nothing to say about product quality then why the article at all? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, so many pulling-up-in-the-sky adjectives I have seen in other brand pages, but writing about the quality should be based on something, right? A reference from an authority in the field, for example - I assume. I'm a little surprised that so many unreferenced (or barely referenced) watch brand pages are still alive. Kareldorado (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you've seen but what you've done? Hint: if it bothers you, take a big mop with WP:PEACOCK sticker on it (and in edit summary). Re: 'quality': you are right on. Re: 'still alive': see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want my personal opinion, I don't really care about businesses to go on a crusade against them. I don't think this kind of knowledge is vital for wikipedia to waste excessive time on it. You may ask what am I doing in this page, then? Answer: I am talking to a colleague wikipedian, regardless the business in question. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant spam--Pagoprima (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this is no personal war after I gave criticism in the AfD-page about Breil (company), Pagoprima. What I wrote there is that the Breil article could be better if it were rewritten in a more neutral way, and leaving those sentences out was already a step in the good direction. Honestly, I hope none of "our" articles needs to be deleted, but we will see how others have their say. Kareldorado (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the current version of the article, more non-primary sources are used than in several other (but unchallenged) articles in the category "Watch manufacturing companies of Switzerland". Kareldorado (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you are confused. The issue in not about 'primary' or not. The issue is who/what is the source of information. With the exception of a single ref (which simply mentions Hanowa inside a different subject) there is no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware that not primary is not necessarily independent. However, I hope that "enough" of the given sources (5 newspapers, 5 sites with brand/company profiles, some magazines and an event page) do provide independent information. Kareldorado (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the key word in your reply is "I hope", whereas I did look into the sources and see close to no independent information. If you disagree, please indicate which sources, in your opinion, delivered independent info. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Errr... perhaps "Hindustan Times", "The Economic Times", "The Star" and the sites with brand/company profiles? I agree that the key word is "I hope". Kareldorado (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Errr...rrrr..<growl...bite>. Do you remember my remark about press releases? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete No notability per WP:CORP--Zipezap (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered this comment to be written by a sockpuppet as this person had barely contributed (1 edit in the minutes before) before writing this; not even a talk page (or user page) was made at that moment. Kareldorado (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep This presents us with a small dilemma—or three! The parent company, same as Frommherz's Roamer (name not found, though could just be Roamer) appears to be non-notable. The sister-company (or possibly parent), the Roamer brand, already has an article and also appears non-notable. The founder, Hans Noll, does appear to have filed a US patent for using Haematite for watch timing—other than that he also appears non-notable.

The real problem is that of reliable sources, especially problematic is that non-German speakers may not be getting the right results as reliable sources may be local newspapers, Swiss/German ones, that Google has not cached (or is not considering for me as I am an English speaker). The only one I can see that seems to be reliable is the Solothurner Zeitung and it's article (translation (murdered by Google)). Unless reliable sources can be found it seems that the best solution for these two articles (this and Roaming) might be to compress dramatically, and merge into the Solothurn page - with a new section Solothurn#Industry? - as recommended in WP:FAILN. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good suggestion about the merging, taking into account the few reliable sources. Methinks, a paragraph about "the Frommherz group" in section Solothurn#Industry stating that both local watchmaking companies are run by the same person would be good (I don't know if there is any other local watch brand or manufacturer). Kareldorado (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why not: merging is possible resolution. You can past and copy text without promotional part; anyway this article need deletion--Puccetto (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into the Solothurn page in section Solothurn#Industry with Roamer (watchmaker) as above's suggestion--Pagoprima (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.