Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stas

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:50Z

Peter Stas[edit]

Previous AfD for Frederique Constant.

The creator, who happens to be Peter Stas himself, maintains that he and his company are notable, and this isn't just self-promotion (despite both articles being speedied under those reasons a few days ago). Bringing it here for review. -- Steel 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am currently in an ongoing heated debate with Peter Stas about the notability of his company, and given how hard he's finding it proving the notability of his company, never mind himself, I see no reason why these articles should be here. No substantial claim to notability, not verfiable, potential vanity page and no sources. Only source that got provided to me so far is a 2 year old article that rubbished the claim that him and his company introduced the silicium escapement wheel in the last 21 days (which was the claim to notability) and made absolutely no mention to either Peter Stas or his company. The Kinslayer 14:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is in fact the creator/founder and he cannot provide reliable sources to verify the subject's notability then the article is in violation of Wikipedia's attribution policy and subject to deletion. NeoFreak 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:V. If the company's president can't give us verifiable sources, then I see no reason to memorialize him. The company itself is demonstrably notable (nearly half a million Google hits along with G-sponsored links to authorized US dealers and the like, and that research took me all of five seconds), but this fellow isn't. RGTraynor 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should amend my comment to reflect that I believe the Stas article to be in violation of WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:V and WP:VAIN. On the Frederique Constant article, there is no doubt of the firm's notability (however much the article doesn't well reflect that), and my vote there would be for a firm Keep. RGTraynor 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stas (Neutral on Frederique Constant). While the company has a shred of claim to notability, their CEO certainly does not. Caknuck 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per RGTraynor.Corporal Punishment 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman - As a first user, it still is a learning experience how you guys work and try to destruct a contribution. On talk pages, I have added various links to external articles on a Silicium Escapement, Frederique Constant and myself. The comment "If the company's president can't give us sources" is inappropriate. I have had a discussion already with Kinslayer on the Assume good faith guideline, which he considers unbinding. Still, I would like to ask if you can also give constructive critism as my intention was:

1) To enter information on a revolutionary silicium_escapement_wheel that we have introduced in February. Meanwhile, we have established it is indeed noteworthy information but my claim that we created it is considered not correct because Patek Philippe made an announcement in 2005 introducing a similar system.

2) To enter Frederique Constant, a well established watch company with, as also mentioned below, over half a million page references.

3) To enter myself because I saw that most companies have information on the CEO and founders of their companies. Please delete the page on myself if you feel it is of no contribution. I made the link after looking at other pages and thought that it was supposed to be done like this.

Pcstas 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)— Pcstas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1) You have yet to provide any evidence that your wheel is any way substantially different from the SEW introduced to the industry by Patek Philippe. You have claimed it has 'unique features' but have not provided any sources to back that claim up. The only source you provided was the article that proved your company is merely using someone elses design (regardless of any refinements you may have made. Refining the wheel and being the first to introduce the wheel to an industry are completely different things)

2)Google hits are not an establishment of Notability.Well-known and Notable are different things entirely. Pages with 15 Ghits have been proven notable in the past.

3)Other pages existing is generally not considered a valid arguement for the inclusion of an article. See also WP:COI. The Kinslayer 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re uniqueness: If you would have looked at the image of the Silicium Escapement Wheel that I uploaded, and it seems you have removed from the pages, you would have seen that the center of the wheel is made in the image of the Frederique Constant trademark logo. This is an unique design feature that every goodwilling person would have seen and confirmed. We further developped the shape and surface of our Silicium Escapement Wheel. It takes a whole technical discussion on the calculation of the teeth profiles which is most probably lost on you. As a start, place back the photo on the discussion pages so that everybody can see what I am talking about.Pcstas 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually laughed out loud at this! 'It's notably unique becuase your companies logo is on it'?! I have a wallet with my own design on it, but that doesn't entitle me to claim I have created a revolutionary new wallet! As I said earlier, redesigning/improving upon an exisiting design is nowhere near as notable as creating the design to begin with! Over the course of the last couple of days, you've gone from claiming your company created the SEW, to claiming they 'introduced' it to the market two years after it was actually introduced, and now your down to claiming it's unique merely becuase it has your company logo on it!Incredible! Does it make it unique? Perhaps. Does it make it notable? Never.The Kinslayer 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Image removed because it's disrupting the discussion, please provide a link only) The Kinslayer 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Notability: I did not only provide Google hits as source on our company but other external sources as well: http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/archives/2005/06/swiss_watch_com.php http://www.fhs.ch/en/news/news.php?id=484 http://www.europastar.com/europastar/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384538 Please see also the Financial Times, maybe you consider that more credible: http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=frederique+constant&x=13&y=2&aje=true&dse=&dsz= Pcstas 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources do prove you and your companies notability, but the picture your showing us is a computer generated image? What the heck is that supposed to prove? Your company can produce an image using a computer? Well done. Moving on, I suggest a compromise. I'll change my opinion to keeping both articles, but I must insist that the claims of creating the Silicium escapement wheel stop. There are multiple readily available sources of other companies who also make the same claim, and theirs goes back further than 21 days, such as this one. More are available on demand. Is this acceptable? The Kinslayer 18:51, 22 February 2007 (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.