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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I appreciate the point. However, that's not what I said and not what I meant. The vogue piece is paid advertising. It is of no help in establishing notability, as I said: [only] the PDF helps establish notability. Vogue has some info which might help the article content-wise, that is all. Likewise, the ad industry stuff is not about the watch, and it's not really about the manufacturer either. It's about the ad industry. I'm not saying there might be a quid-pro-quo. I'm saying the norm is that there's a quid-pro-quo. Having taken another look for evidence of "a level of independence", I find none. Likewise for "Significant coverage" - the short stuff "addresses the topic directly and in detail"? No, not even close. "editorial integrity"? Nope. "Independent of the subject"? Nope. And perhaps most importantly, "encyclopedic"? No. Later. --Elvey (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- But where is the evidence that this piece involved a quid-pro-quot? We can suspect it, suggest it, allege it and claim it is the norm. But nothing in the article confirms (or even suggests) as much. Likewise, there is nothing to substantiate the claim that the Vogue article is "paid advertising", in fact both authors credited in the article would seem to be Vogue regulars. The articles (two of them) about the company's advertising spend are about the company's advertising spend. The fact that industry magazines see the company's advertising contracts as significant enough to discuss suggests this is more than a back-street watch-maker with no notability. Stalwart111 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the point. However, that's not what I said and not what I meant. The vogue piece is paid advertising. It is of no help in establishing notability, as I said: [only] the PDF helps establish notability. Vogue has some info which might help the article content-wise, that is all. Likewise, the ad industry stuff is not about the watch, and it's not really about the manufacturer either. It's about the ad industry. I'm not saying there might be a quid-pro-quo. I'm saying the norm is that there's a quid-pro-quo. Having taken another look for evidence of "a level of independence", I find none. Likewise for "Significant coverage" - the short stuff "addresses the topic directly and in detail"? No, not even close. "editorial integrity"? Nope. "Independent of the subject"? Nope. And perhaps most importantly, "encyclopedic"? No. Later. --Elvey (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- You're setting up a straw man/twisting my words around again. Stop. BTW, thanks Stalwart - somehow my comment replaced others' comments; there was no intent to do so or warning from the MediaWiki software, and it's now fixed. There's plenty of room in the Binda article for a section on Breil. The quality of the sources given is closer to 'pathetic' than 'fine'. --Elvey (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- (Yeah, a system error - no big deal) I'm really not trying to twist your words around. You suggested it was paid advertising - I said I couldn't see any evidence that was the case, rather that there were suggestions to the contrary. You are welcome to believe (based on your experience) that it is likely there was such an arrangement. I'm not arguing to the contrary. Only that I, without the same "experience on the editorial side of fashion magazines", can't see evidence for it and on that basis, I concluded it's okay. If your experience has given you some greater insight, that's fine, but I don't have the same insight from which to draw conclusions. There's no --Advertisement-- tag line or PRESS RELEASE heading and the staff responsible for it would seem to be regular editorial staff. There's not much more for me to go on than that. Stalwart111 04:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're setting up a straw man/twisting my words around again. Stop. BTW, thanks Stalwart - somehow my comment replaced others' comments; there was no intent to do so or warning from the MediaWiki software, and it's now fixed. There's plenty of room in the Binda article for a section on Breil. The quality of the sources given is closer to 'pathetic' than 'fine'. --Elvey (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree DGG and Stalwart's opinions. 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. I don't understand decision's logical criterium for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanowa, started by me, in comparison with this decision: why does Hanowa remain and Breil not? At least you can keep both articles, if no consensus reached! And commercially Breil watches are more sellers and international renowned than Hanowa: sources claim these data!--Puccetto (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Endorse close and allow recreation per sources found it is a redirect so userfy is not necessary. Valoem talk contrib 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)