Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 2

I would like restore article and I don't understand decision of merge to Binda Group--Puccetto (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand ask the closing admin. Drv is used if you disagree and have a reason. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is an additional good source , one that was used in the [ttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breil_(azienda) Italian WP article[, but not mentioned in the English one: [1], from an Italian technical school. No version included it, nobody at the discussion mentioned it, even tho 2 of the contributors to the discussion also contributed to that article. . DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close but allow recreation - I don't think there was anything wrong with the close itself based on the weight of arguments put forward, the crowd of WP:SPAs and the alleged sock-puppetry. That said, I was able to find some fairly good coverage (I think) of the brand and its products in fairly reliable sources:

- If buying one of these watches means David will kiss us – we’ll have 10 please, with details of the product and company.

- WATCH: David Gandy for Breil in new TV ad, with details of previous spokespeople.

- Ducati Corse/Breil watches now available., which is possibly based on a press release but nonetheless calls them, "renowned Italian watch makers".

- Binda Group Puts $50 Million Breil Watch Biz Into Review, about the company's advertising contracts.

- Breil owner Binda calls £40m global creative review, a different story about the same issue.

- Breil salutes designs of the future, a feature in Italian Vogue.

Then we have stuff like this, this and this with passing mentions of specific products in various magazines and industry publications. All together, I think we probably have enough for the subject to be considered notable. Again, no criticism of the nominator or the closer of the AFD itself, but I have been able to find a few more sources. Stalwart111 03:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. No recreation. To my eye (and I have experience on the editorial side of fashion magazines/sites where these kinds of short articles are generally created because they are paid for (usually in product) by the manufacturers). These are not reliable sources indicating notability and the deletion should stand. The PDF helps establish notability, but isn't enough and none of the other coverage above helps it at all except the ad biz and Vogue ones, which are of little help. --Elvey (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from but by that count, you're suggesting that 4 of the sources provided above (the PDF, Vogue and the two advertising industry pieces) are okay. Four is generally enough to meet the "multiple sources" criteria of WP:GNG. I understand there might be a quid-pro-quot arrangement with the others but there really isn't way to substantiate that and the addition of editorial about previous spokespeople (which I can't imagine is something the brand necessarily wants in advertorial) suggests there is at least a level of independence. I'm not suggesting is the most notable brand ever, but I'm inclined to think it squeaks by. Stalwart111 01:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree Stalwart's opinion. There are a lot of fine sources in Italian language and in Enghlish there are several too. I invite to consider this situation: Breil is the most important company owned by Binda and sure it is more important than Wyler but now Wyler (company) has related article. Furthermore in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breil (company) six users were for deletion-merge and five users were for keep: 6 versus 5 is not clearer consensus under this project's rules--Puccetto (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]