Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolf W. Schnyder

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 no consensus and no indication that another relist would provide one. Star Mississippi 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf W. Schnyder[edit]

[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)

WP:MEMORIAL written by WP:COI editor for non-notable businessman. This rambling article effectively says "man did job". Being CEO of a notable company does not make this individual notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. MIDI (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Appear to not meet GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people), basic search returned one source from Robb Report, won't be surprised if another RS was found Justi yaya 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several RS to article that demonstrate his notability. Article was created by "Ulysse-nardin", that seems to be in associated with the subject. Unsoursed context should be removed, but subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the sources are press releases or derived from press releases after his passing. We cannot use press releases or articles derived heavily from press releases, as they are not considered independent. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the simple reason there is almost no independent coverage of this person. After tracing down the sources of what little coverage there is, it appears to originate mostly from company press releases. Also, one obituary does not make a subject notable. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources cited in the page. There may be reliable sources on Google News, as I saw a few passing mentions only on articles about the company. Notability is not inherited. Any reliable, independent sources with SIGCOV must be added or the page is a delete. Multi7001 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the article about the company he was a CEO of. His contributions could be discussed there. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst the article as it stand is WP:PROMO, Schnyder is a WP:BASIC pass per this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. The present state of referencing in the article doesn't matter per WP:NEXIST, WP:PROMO can be fixed through normal editing. The Financial Times reference particularly makes this an easy keep. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep in mind that nearly all of those sources you shared came from the same press release, or press announcement on about the same date, and per WP:PRSOURCE "Press releases and articles written from press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the obituaries obviously contains independent reporting. The fact that they quote the press release as a statement from the company about his death does not mean that they are based on the press release. I mean Financial Times is about as high-quality as things get with sourcing so you're going to have a up-hill struggle to convince anyone that they sourced their obituary of Schnyder to a press release when it contains a bunch of stuff that clearly wasn't sourced to the company and aren't contained in the other articles about his death (e.g., the expansion in the former USSR and sales to a central Asian dictator, details about "The freak", Ludwig Oechslin's role etc. etc. etc.).

Additionally the final source (La Stampa) was from before his death, wasn't based on a press-release, so did you actually check all of the sources I included in my comment?

And this is all without even touching on the industry press (e.g., this), and society coverage (e.g., this and this). FOARP (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the independent coverage is still almost entirely based off the news of his death, and there does not appear to be much coverage during his life. I did look at the sources you shared. The La Stampa is just a couple of quotes from him about the business, according to my translation. Am I wrong? I don't think that's significant coverage of the man himself. But clearly a lot of this is subjective. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FT obituary is very clearly coverage of Schnyder's entire life. Ditto the industry press coverage. The Le Temps obituary does discuss his sporting career and rescue of the company so it's not just about his death. The Tropical Style book is by Tuttle Publishing (an established publishing house) and is also clearly significant coverage of Schnyder, and notably doesn't even mention the company. That coverage of his life happened primarily when he died does not negate the fact that this is coverage of his life - many notable people only receive their best coverage in obituaries or after they are dead. Even taking a narrow view of the period of time in which there was coverage of Schnyder, it appears to have gone on for months/years and did not simply occur in April 2011. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I've given the article a heavy edit to remove the PROMO garbage, reads better now I think. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re-reviewing the sources cited, the page is a very weak keep; a subject of very low significance in the industry. The page will require the removal of all unreliable sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 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.