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 merge to IBM Research. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

IBM Research – Zurich (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Prodded, redirected to IBM Research, redirect reverted. Sigh. No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term. And no, the Lab DID NOT win Nobel Prizes, and the fact that some people working that doesn't matter much ( WP:NOTINHERITED). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• If kept, it would certainly need editing for promotionalism. Finding sources about the lab itself is a bit difficult, because of the many news reports about research conducted there, but there are some things esp. in Swiss media, if one searches for "IBM Rüschlikon": the European Physical Society designated it as a "Historic Site" ( [1]), there was once an attempted terror attack against the lab ( [2], [3]), and there is a report by a Swiss IT trade publication ( [4]). My impression is that this is certainly a historically significant research lab, one of the leading sites of technological research in Switzerland, but I'm neutral as to whether it needs its own article or is better covered in IBM Research. Sandstein 09:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge Seems like most of the sources in the IBM Research article are primary. So I think it would be good to merge to this article to it in order to boast its notability. Then if enough is written about this particular lab eventually it can be split off again. At this point it doesn't like there is enough on it's own though. Even if there might be "sources", who knows how notable they are or if anyone will ever use them to expand the article, to the degree it would be worth saving now as a separate article in case. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The lab definitely gets credit and notability for its Nobel prize winning work--the work was done at the lab, the scientists were employed by the lab, the work was planned, approved, and sponsored by the lab. Some reliable sources, books and the Swiss physics society, discussing IBM Zurich and it's Nobel prizes: [5], [6], [7], [8]. I agree with Sandstein that the promotional content should be toned down, but that is a matter of editing and not deletion. A pretty notable lab and surmountable article problems suggest a keep. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 04:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I can tell, the LAB is mentioned in passing. For example, the last source is all 'worked in the lab'-like mentions, no evidence the lab is analyzed in detail. Only [9] is an exception and about the lab, but I don't think it is peer reviewed, effectively a newsletter-level coverage, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The lab didn't win the Nobel prize. The researchers who worked there did. Notability isn't inherited and it's arguable they would have still won the prize at any of IBM's other research labs. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Of course the lab did not win the prizes, but sources show the lab made the work possible and supported the people, the lab and equipment on which the work was done and the projects in which the work was done. The argument that the lab is non-notable because such discoveries could have been elsewhere is speculation and a non-policy based reason for deletion. The sources above (and others out there) show that the lab is notable and has significant coverage in RS for its back-to-back Nobel prizes. As Bell labs has gotten credit and coverage in RS for the invention of the transistor, IBM Zurich has gotten credit and coverage in RS for the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope and for discovery of high Tc superconductors. My keep recommendation stands. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 20:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Of course its speculation that the work could have done somewhere else. That's why I said it was arguable that it could have. I never claimed otherwise. I'm not saying you should change your vote either. I just find the discussion of proper sources interesting and having it helps us makes better decisions later on. That said, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (which I assume this is about because it's a specific lab, not IBM Research more generally) says that for places to be notable for events (inventing something, winning a noble prize, etc) taking place there the place itself still requires significant coverage on it's own. Which is why Bell Labs is notable. In this article, the first two sources are about the scientists that won the prices and the lab is only mentioned in passing. Whereas, the second source is trivial and the third is just a link to the Wikipedia article not on the lab. All the other sources except for two seem to be trivial also. Two sources is hardly significant coverage. Let alone is it enough to substantiate the claim in the article that the lab is "world-renowned." Compare that to the Bell Labs article. Which has 87 sources, 87. How at all does a subject with 87 sources even compare to one with 2? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge. Not enough WP:RS to merit its own article. Dorama285 ( talk) 23:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge with IBM Research, as per Dorama285. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 01:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to IBM Research as the other branches of the parent organization have been per WP:BRANCH. No evidence of significant coverage as a separate organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:59, 21 March 2020 (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.