Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovial (watch)

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. clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovial (watch)

[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. Source 1 appears to be the only significant coverage which is independent that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 2, 3 and 4 are self-published, source 5 is a mere directory entry and source 6 is 404ing. Overall, it looks like a pretty clear failure of WP:NCORP to me, especially considering offline sources don't seem to give much coverage either. SITH (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is hard to find sources for Jovial watch due to the common name perhaps Cunard (talk · contribs) can find sources. It seems to be notable based on the age of the brand. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about Jovial in the searches I did. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Europa Star article seems to be solid enough, but we need two. And I wouldn't think that would be hard for an 80-year-old Swiss watchmaking company, but apparently I'm wrong. I'm fairly certain the archived International Watch Club link (in See Also) is not a reliable source. I've tried searching just about every watch periodical I can find, including the Watch Times Middle East edition, to no avail. My advocacy for deletion is "weak" because I do suspect that somewhere in the last 80 years, this company has been addressed in print media. Perhaps in French, perhaps in Arabic. But not immediately searchable. However, I can't really justify retention based on that belief and one good source, so there we are. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was trying to find reviews and other such articles about this watch manufacture, I could see they are a worldwide seller, however the lack of editorials over this watch really isn't helping the article. So I agree with the nominators choice of WP:CORPDEPTH. Govvy (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2019 (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.