Talk:Reguladora
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Contested deletion
[edit]This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:
1) there are several articles about watch manufacturing companies like this one. The deleting of this articles would imply the deleting of most of the articles about watch manufacturing and even other manufacturing companies; 2) the article it about one of the oldest watch manufacturing companies of Europe, so with historical relevance in the industry; 3) the article is about a company that produces a wide range of products, so with economical and technical relevance.
- Not every company merits an article on Wikipedia merely by existing; there must be something notable or significant about it; right now those items you mention are not discussed in the article, and no independent sources are given which might indicate its notability. The notability guidelines for companies give some good criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- To consider whether the company referred to in the article is sufficiently notable or significant to have an article is something abstract and subjective, but it has the characteristics that define a notable organization, according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Again, most of the articles listed in the List of watch manufacturers are about similar companies, most of them without the same historical or other relevance as this company. Should this article be deleted, the same criteria should be followed for the other articles about watch manufactureres and most of them should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.134.35 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Other stuff exists; this article not meeting the criteria doesn't mean that others don't. I'm not really seeing which guidelines this company meets. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- To consider whether the company referred to in the article is sufficiently notable or significant to have an article is something abstract and subjective, but it has the characteristics that define a notable organization, according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Again, most of the articles listed in the List of watch manufacturers are about similar companies, most of them without the same historical or other relevance as this company. Should this article be deleted, the same criteria should be followed for the other articles about watch manufactureres and most of them should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.88.134.35 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the speedy tag, as there is a clear claim that sources might exist for this 100+ year old company, which is good enough to clear the CSD criteria. 331dot - you are arguing against the wrong criteria - if you want to argue about whether there is sufficient coverage in sources, start an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- For now I have just tagged the page in the hope that more sources will come. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)