Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERA Timepieces

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. Sandstein 07:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Timepieces

[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)

Not a notable company. The WSJ, Bloomberg, and Economist refs don't mention this company, they're just about "new brands" in general. Article is also promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ, Bloomberg, and Economist mention "micropbrands" which this company is in fact and also the landscape which this company is currently operating in.Izazii (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "The ERA Prometheus is a line of tourbillon watches made by ERA Timepieces and one of the world’s first affordable tourbillon watch models." (Verified by 3rd Party site Crunchbase and quoted directly). "As of Feb 2019, it is also the most crowdfunded tourbillon watch in history and the most funded watch campaign out of the fashion capital - New York City." (Verfied by 3rd Party site Crunchbase and Vogue - quoted directly)

Keep: This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily exceeds General Notability & Credible claim of significance guidelines (Crunchbase, Economist, Bloomberg, 3rd Party Fashion blogs). The notability is supported by a plethora of verifiable third-party sources. Furthermore, the entity has received extensive media coverage at all levels. Izazii (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accepted above that the Bloomberg and Economist sources don't actually mention the subject of this article, but now you are saying that they do. Both statements can't be true, so which is the lie? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Crunchbase is considered a generally unreliable source, for the reason that "The majority of Crunchbase is user-generated content". Colin M (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki

Watches have notable wearers and sponsors. Rolex, Omega, Breitling, lists their notable owners and wearers on Wikipedia. Therefore, it should also be included for this artcile as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izazii (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. With regards to Izazii's comment, the notable owners and wearers are notable, but it doesn't mean that everything they own and wear is notable too. SITH (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional tone, no evidence of notability. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could not be a more blatant example of WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT. Trillfendi (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:SOAP. Flagrant Instance. SwagGangster ^• 03:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and no evidence of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, also clearly a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 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.