Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conica AG

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conica AG

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Notability and third-party tag placed. Previously prodded. References are primary, company info, pr, success stories. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really, really don't understand why the PROD was declined here. As per my PROD: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Coverage presented here is company releases, website, win stories." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage presented here ist not exclusively "company releases, website, win stories". Onel5969 has already noted that SRF is a good source and Rosguill has confirmed that this is a borderline case. After that even more sources have been added to the article. @Alexandermcnabb: I tried to reach out to you via your talk page to discuss the (German) sources, as you may not understand them all, but you have ignored this for over 7 days now. Your vote on the other hand arrived only 5 minutes after the nomination (including the time of writing) - as if you had been sitting on scope_creep's lap ... What happened to WP:TALKFIRST? Best Respicefinem (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can go through the sources. scope_creep^Talk 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Respicefinem, I missed your message on my talk - it's been busy. I'm not generally a fan of discussing AfDs on my talk - that's why we have this here space here. Let's unpick some of these sources - for instance, let's take the promotional-sounding statement in the lede, " In the field of molded plastic track surfaces for athletics, the Swiss company is considered the global market leader." That's sourced to three references. The first is the WP page of the Swiss Athletics Federation, a DAB as it happens. The second is an Italian directory with company submitted content. And the third is an article posted on the ICIS business information site derived from Conica press information and an interview with Conica’s strategic manager for sports. The next three references, it's worth noting, are all derived from Conica's own website (as, indeed, are eight of the references provided). When we add press releases, interviews with company representatives and the like, we have a total of 34 references standing up a 600 word article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." It remains my view that the Conica article does not reach that starndard. I do try not to sit on scope_creep's lap; I'm not that sort of boy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first 12 references:
Ref 1 Company landing page Non-rs.

Ref 2 BODENSTÄNDIGE EFFIZIENZ Fails WP:AUD and is non-rs.

Ref 3 Wikipedia ref. An illegal ref.

Ref 4 Profile Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 5 Olympic flooring boosts athletes’ performance Discussion of Conica products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 6 CONICA achieves record sales and sets the course for the future Company press-release. Non-RS

Ref 7 Company page Non-RS

Ref 8 Company page Non-RS

Ref 9 New track partner for European Athletics Association Press-release

Ref 10 The Conica Group Becomes the Official Track Partner of the European Athletics Association (EA) from 2023 on! Press-release

Ref 11 Das grünste Stadion der Welt "Conica has been developing careers and innovative seamless flooring solutions based on polyurethane and epoxy resins for 40 years. " PR. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 12 Hungarian Athletics Federation and Conica AG sign cooperation agreement Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

This article is complete native advertising. It is complete in brochure like quality. There is not a single redeeming feature. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some of this analysis may be correct, the conclusion is not.

First of all, Ref 3 is not illegal, it is simply WP:OFFLINE. Maybe you have confused the publisher's H:WIKILINK with the source citation.

I would not classify the sources you mentioned predominantly non-RS, but rather a mix of WP:RSSELF, WP:RS/SPS, WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:SELFSOURCE. Even though WP:SECONDARY is preferred, WP:PRIMARY is basically not all bad for specific facts and certainly not illegal.

The main sources that speak without doubt for keeping the article are following your list, e.g.

Ref 16 Schaffhauser Nachrichten [de], Daily Newspaper

Ref 19 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 20 Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SFR), largest electronic media house of Switzerland

Ref 22 SWI, swissinfo.ch is the international unit of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC),

I, for one, would be a bit more cautious with the terms "complete" and "not a single one" if I am to judge the book by its cover (and only some of the pages) ... The article can certainly be improved, but there is no need to delete it. Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that proves its notable. Using Wikipedia for a reference is illegal per policy. Your article is full of PR, Press-releases, routine coverage. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why do you falsely claim that an illegal source was used, even though I explained to you where your misinterpretation lies? Please at least try to read the arguments of the discussion participants before restating your own. Your personal opinion does not become more correct just because you keep repeating it. With this attitude, a discussion is very tiresome and doesn't lead any further. Let's wait and see how others judge this case. Thank you for your understanding! Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 19 and 20 are press-releases. Ref 22 is a long description of company product at a Letzigrund Stadium and fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview with the company. scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Swiss sources here – which are by definition neutral and independent. Respicefinem (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The national provenance of a source has no bearing on its neutrality or independence. That's just silly. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source added (Ref 6), so the order of points discussed here has changed a bit. Respicefinem (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a passing mention really. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (Ref 3) added, which mixes up the order a bit further ... Best Respicefinem (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization.

Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I believe this is the point that Respicefinem is missing above when he claims "Swiss" sources are "independent". We don't just look at the publisher, we also look closely at the *content* to determine independence.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and this topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe the point is that you (and Alexandermcnabb) are missing when Respicefinem is joking above. In Germany the phrase "as neutral as Switzerland" is a figure of speech with an ironic touch. My deepest apologies if this wasn't obvious and inappropriate. Couldn't resist ...

Ref 3 (first paragraph, second half and second paragraph) is about the company
Ref 4 is a double-page article in the print edition (WP:OFFLINE, rem WP:AGF) exclusively about the company
Ref 5 (published in the home country of Conica's largest competitor, Mondo) is about the company
Ref 21 (even in the title) is about the company
Ref 24 (second half) is about the company

Overall, this article has more and better sources than most of the SMEs here. I see no reason not to keep it and improve it further. Best Respicefinem (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Respicefinem: Your only allowed one indication of a keep or delete, so I've removed your bolding. Also that argument is in the list of arguments not give. Notability is based on coverage and each article is indepdent when it comes to Afd, so it is a redundant argument. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the notability is not given is a repeated argument of yours, but that is still predominantly your personal evaluation of the sources. I see it differently.

@Sandstein: Perhaps you, as a native speaker of Schwiizerdütsch, can assess some of the sources a bit more closely? Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in the topic, sorry. Sandstein 13:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in agreement with what User:scope_creep has said above. The article's sources certainly establish the company's existence, but the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH is considerably higher than that. User:Respicefinem's analysis is unfortunately not in line with those requirements; for example, "ref 5" is written just to promote the company and is therefore not an independent or reliable source. And so forth. FalconK (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2022 (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.