This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
How does this article qualify for inclusion? Why is this company notable? Any reason not to tag for speedy delete?--Jaymax (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
This article doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria under WP:CSD#Articles (like "no context", "doesn't assert notability", etc), so it wouldn't qualify for speedy. The problem is that it's full of fluff so it looks like an empty advert instead of looking like a succint explanation of what the company is and has been and why.
about advert tag. The article violates WP:MOSBOLD big time by bolding every marketing-loaded term, which further reinforces that impression. It also fails to explain that they made a good impression in the industry by making a good Tourbillon-based watch (with two tourbillons in one watch case, which seems to be an impressive technical feat in watch making, and now they made one with four tourbillons, and they actually get to sell them for ridiculously high prices). (I made a few edits to try to fix it a bit).
The company only has 30 employess and only produces "between 20 and 30 very complicated watches each year, retailing at an average price of around 400,000 francs"[1]. However, it seems to have had enough coverage as a high-end watchmaker to assert notability, I think that it would probably survive a AfD.
Since wikipedia has a sistemic US-centrism bias, I'll say that this company has also been covered by some Spanish language sources, so it's notable internationally: Mexico's newspaper El Universal[2] and Spain's economic magazine Expansión[3] (no text available). It also got a passing mention as one of the important watchmaker firms going to BaselWorld 2009 [4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, so you've provided here a reasonable basis for at least some level of notability. The article needs to reflect that - I suggest mentioning this tourbillon 'feat' (in neutral language) in the summary, including the reference to your third external link - perhaps pull a quote from the worldtempus article - It seems reasonably balanced (if swaying between cynicism and adulation, it's still balance). As it stands, I don't think the article would survive AfD, but I think by using the third-party independent refs more, the company refs less, and stripping out a lot more of the fluff (esp in the 'products section' which still reads like a brochure, So I'm reverting the 'advert' tag removal. Sorry... It'll get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've toned down the Products section and removed the ad tag. Someone whose a watch expert should confirm none of my changes have introduced factual errors. --Jaymax (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}