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.
Delete I really, really don't understand why the PROD was declined here. As per my PROD: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Coverage presented here is company releases, website, win stories." Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage presented here ist not exclusively "company releases, website, win stories".
Onel5969 has already noted that SRF is a good source and
Rosguill has confirmed that this is a borderline case. After that even more sources have been added to the article. @
Alexandermcnabb: I tried to reach out to you via your talk page to discuss the (German) sources, as you may not understand them all, but you have ignored this for over 7 days now. Your vote on the other hand arrived only 5 minutes after the nomination (including the time of writing) - as if you had been sitting on
scope_creep's lap ... What happened to WP:TALKFIRST? Best
Respicefinem (
talk)
22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Apologies,
Respicefinem, I missed your message on my talk - it's been busy. I'm not generally a fan of discussing AfDs on my talk - that's why we have this here space here. Let's unpick some of these sources - for instance, let's take the promotional-sounding statement in the lede, " In the field of molded plastic track surfaces for athletics, the Swiss company is considered the global market leader." That's sourced to three references. The first is the WP page of the Swiss Athletics Federation, a DAB as it happens. The second is an Italian directory with company submitted content. And the third is an article posted on the ICIS business information site derived from Conica press information and an interview with Conica’s strategic manager for sports. The next three references, it's worth noting, are all derived from Conica's own website (as, indeed, are eight of the references provided). When we add press releases, interviews with company representatives and the like, we have a total of 34 references standing up a 600 word article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." It remains my view that the Conica article does not reach that starndard. I do try not to sit on
scope_creep's lap; I'm not that sort of boy. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Ref 11
Das grünste Stadion der Welt "Conica has been developing careers and innovative seamless flooring solutions based on polyurethane and epoxy resins for 40 years. " PR. Fails
WP:SIRS
While some of this analysis may be correct, the conclusion is not.
First of all, Ref 3 is not illegal, it is simply
WP:OFFLINE. Maybe you have confused the publisher's
H:WIKILINK with the source citation.
I would not classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of
WP:RSSELF,
WP:RS/SPS,
WP:RSPRIMARY and
WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though
WP:SECONDARY is preferred,
WP:PRIMARY is basically not all bad for specific facts and certainly not illegal.
The main sources that speak without doubt for keeping the article are following your list, e.g.
Ref 22 SWI, swissinfo.ch is the international unit of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC),
I, for one, would be a bit more cautious with the terms "complete" and "not a single one" if I am to judge the book by its cover (and only some of the pages) ... The article can certainly be improved, but there is no need to delete it. Thanks
Respicefinem (
talk)
00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
None of that proves its notable. Using Wikipedia for a reference is illegal per policy. Your article is full of PR, Press-releases, routine coverage. It fails
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Excuse me, but why do you falsely claim that an illegal source was used, even though I explained to you where your misinterpretation lies? Please at least try to read the arguments of the discussion participants before restating your own. Your personal opinion does not become more correct just because you keep repeating it. With this attitude, a discussion is very tiresome and doesn't lead any further. Let's wait and see how others judge this case. Thank you for your understanding!
Respicefinem (
talk)
16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company/organization therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization.
Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per
WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two.
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "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. I believe this is the point that Respicefinem is missing above when he claims "Swiss" sources are "independent". We don't just look at the publisher, we also look closely at the *content* to determine independence.
And I believe the point is that you (and
Alexandermcnabb) are missing when Respicefinem is joking above. In Germany the phrase "as neutral as Switzerland" is a figure of speech with an ironic touch. My deepest apologies if this wasn't obvious and inappropriate. Couldn't resist ...
Ref 3 (first paragraph, second half and second paragraph) is about the company
Ref 4 is a double-page article in the print edition (
WP:OFFLINE, rem
WP:AGF) exclusively about the company
Ref 5 (published in the home country of Conica's largest competitor,
Mondo) is about the company
Ref 21 (even in the title) is about the company
Ref 24 (second half) is about the company
Overall, this article has more and better sources than most of the SMEs here. I see no reason not to keep it and improve it further. Best
Respicefinem (
talk)
00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Respicefinem: Your only allowed one indication of a keep or delete, so I've removed your bolding. Also that argument is in the list of arguments not give. Notability is based on coverage and each article is indepdent when it comes to Afd, so it is a redundant argument. scope_creepTalk08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
That the notability is not given is a repeated argument of yours, but that is still predominantly your personal evaluation of the sources. I see it differently.
Delete. I'm in agreement with what
User:scope_creep has said above. The article's sources certainly establish the company's existence, but the threshold of
WP:CORPDEPTH is considerably higher than that.
User:Respicefinem's analysis is unfortunately not in line with those requirements; for example,
"ref 5" is written just to promote the company and is therefore not an independent or reliable source. And so forth.
FalconK (
talk)
22:43, 24 July 2022 (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.
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.
Delete I really, really don't understand why the PROD was declined here. As per my PROD: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Coverage presented here is company releases, website, win stories." Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage presented here ist not exclusively "company releases, website, win stories".
Onel5969 has already noted that SRF is a good source and
Rosguill has confirmed that this is a borderline case. After that even more sources have been added to the article. @
Alexandermcnabb: I tried to reach out to you via your talk page to discuss the (German) sources, as you may not understand them all, but you have ignored this for over 7 days now. Your vote on the other hand arrived only 5 minutes after the nomination (including the time of writing) - as if you had been sitting on
scope_creep's lap ... What happened to WP:TALKFIRST? Best
Respicefinem (
talk)
22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Apologies,
Respicefinem, I missed your message on my talk - it's been busy. I'm not generally a fan of discussing AfDs on my talk - that's why we have this here space here. Let's unpick some of these sources - for instance, let's take the promotional-sounding statement in the lede, " In the field of molded plastic track surfaces for athletics, the Swiss company is considered the global market leader." That's sourced to three references. The first is the WP page of the Swiss Athletics Federation, a DAB as it happens. The second is an Italian directory with company submitted content. And the third is an article posted on the ICIS business information site derived from Conica press information and an interview with Conica’s strategic manager for sports. The next three references, it's worth noting, are all derived from Conica's own website (as, indeed, are eight of the references provided). When we add press releases, interviews with company representatives and the like, we have a total of 34 references standing up a 600 word article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." It remains my view that the Conica article does not reach that starndard. I do try not to sit on
scope_creep's lap; I'm not that sort of boy. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Ref 11
Das grünste Stadion der Welt "Conica has been developing careers and innovative seamless flooring solutions based on polyurethane and epoxy resins for 40 years. " PR. Fails
WP:SIRS
While some of this analysis may be correct, the conclusion is not.
First of all, Ref 3 is not illegal, it is simply
WP:OFFLINE. Maybe you have confused the publisher's
H:WIKILINK with the source citation.
I would not classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of
WP:RSSELF,
WP:RS/SPS,
WP:RSPRIMARY and
WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though
WP:SECONDARY is preferred,
WP:PRIMARY is basically not all bad for specific facts and certainly not illegal.
The main sources that speak without doubt for keeping the article are following your list, e.g.
Ref 22 SWI, swissinfo.ch is the international unit of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC),
I, for one, would be a bit more cautious with the terms "complete" and "not a single one" if I am to judge the book by its cover (and only some of the pages) ... The article can certainly be improved, but there is no need to delete it. Thanks
Respicefinem (
talk)
00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
None of that proves its notable. Using Wikipedia for a reference is illegal per policy. Your article is full of PR, Press-releases, routine coverage. It fails
WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Excuse me, but why do you falsely claim that an illegal source was used, even though I explained to you where your misinterpretation lies? Please at least try to read the arguments of the discussion participants before restating your own. Your personal opinion does not become more correct just because you keep repeating it. With this attitude, a discussion is very tiresome and doesn't lead any further. Let's wait and see how others judge this case. Thank you for your understanding!
Respicefinem (
talk)
16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company/organization therefore
WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization.
Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per
WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two.
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "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. I believe this is the point that Respicefinem is missing above when he claims "Swiss" sources are "independent". We don't just look at the publisher, we also look closely at the *content* to determine independence.
And I believe the point is that you (and
Alexandermcnabb) are missing when Respicefinem is joking above. In Germany the phrase "as neutral as Switzerland" is a figure of speech with an ironic touch. My deepest apologies if this wasn't obvious and inappropriate. Couldn't resist ...
Ref 3 (first paragraph, second half and second paragraph) is about the company
Ref 4 is a double-page article in the print edition (
WP:OFFLINE, rem
WP:AGF) exclusively about the company
Ref 5 (published in the home country of Conica's largest competitor,
Mondo) is about the company
Ref 21 (even in the title) is about the company
Ref 24 (second half) is about the company
Overall, this article has more and better sources than most of the SMEs here. I see no reason not to keep it and improve it further. Best
Respicefinem (
talk)
00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Respicefinem: Your only allowed one indication of a keep or delete, so I've removed your bolding. Also that argument is in the list of arguments not give. Notability is based on coverage and each article is indepdent when it comes to Afd, so it is a redundant argument. scope_creepTalk08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)reply
That the notability is not given is a repeated argument of yours, but that is still predominantly your personal evaluation of the sources. I see it differently.
Delete. I'm in agreement with what
User:scope_creep has said above. The article's sources certainly establish the company's existence, but the threshold of
WP:CORPDEPTH is considerably higher than that.
User:Respicefinem's analysis is unfortunately not in line with those requirements; for example,
"ref 5" is written just to promote the company and is therefore not an independent or reliable source. And so forth.
FalconK (
talk)
22:43, 24 July 2022 (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.