Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Watches

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Watches

Non-notable company as per WP:Corp as noted by computerjoe in his 20-July prod that was inappropriately removed by article author. Valrith 00:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There really is no "inappropriate removal of a {{prod}}. All that means it that someone contests the deletion of the article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It doesn't meet the corporate guidelines, and the copy is somewhat ad-junk. The article is also advertising. Geogre 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not your personal ad service -- MrDolomite | Talk 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Reasonable as a company profile, needs a more neutral POV JeffMurph 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as required or suggested by WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:CORP WilyD 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although I think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of keeping out articles on companies. AdamBiswanger1 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VSCA. I disagree with Adam; pendulum has not swung far enough. There is another solo watchmaking guy in Hong Kong who's really notable (made the first low-cost tourbillon watches in the 1990's at a mere $10,000 USD or so when European manufacturers were charging 5x that much) but I've forgotten his name. I'll try to research and write an article about him sometime. Phr (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have made the approriate changes to the page, removed any ad type fluff and have include more information about the company. The company does meet corp level inclusion be Wikipedia terms. NO, I dont make a Swiss watch or sell 5 billion per year, but that should not be the requiment and a 10K per month level is high. Information can be verified elsewhere by third parties. Please remove the delete notice - I am sorry for any inappropriate removal. Thank you. 10:45 24 July 2006.
• Keep Improved company profile that has a more neutral POV nneelsmith 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Naconkantari 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Mattisse 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Naconkantari - ad. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment are there any sources available other than the company website? I can find nothing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The brand really does exist, if that's what you're asking [1] [2] [3] (dialup users beware of many pics in first two links, but they are interesting disassembly reports). But article needs to document notability per WP:CORP and that might not be easy. I think the emergence of Chinese manufacturers of high quality mechanical watches is of great interest in horology and someone more into it than I am should certainly write about it, but Alpha's role in it is unclear and the current article is excessively spammy. Phr (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I meant something that met Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, not a forum. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there's stuff in the glossy watch magazines about the company but frankly I'd consider those magazines less reliable than Timezone. You'll never see a review like this (which caused an uproar in the industry) in any of those magazines, which are basically marketing outlets for the watch brands. Phr (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert with itself and a forum as sources. Wipe this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 25 July 2006 (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.