Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmid & Partner Engineering AG

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 Draftify. Creator editing in good faith, and there's no case made why this isn't a viable option for further work. Star Mississippi 00:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schmid & Partner Engineering AG[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)

Article by paid editor, lacks independent sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author is transparent about being paid so I'm willing to give that some wiggle room. The article as is lacks sources to support it being notable. I'm leaning towards this being sent back to draft and undergoing the AfC process. But I'm willing to hear what others think in case I'm way off base. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SPEAG article is a work in progress. I am still learning the procedures for publishing articles. There are confilicting recommendations, one of which is to publish as a stub and flesh it out later. I am considering how to proceed with references. I have a draft article pending about a sister organization Draft:The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society, for which the number and types of references were criticized. I am seeking help from outside sources, and I welcome constructive feedback from wiki reviewers. The work being done by SPEAG, the IT'IS Foundation, and other sister organizations -- developing tools and methods for measurement of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from, e.g., mobile phones and MRI -- is imo notable. It is not self-promotion -- these organizations have ample other avenues for self-promotion -- but rather giving the wiki-reading public an opportunity to learn about how these things are measured. I understand the point that I am too close to the topic, but how long would the world have to wait for an outsider who happens to write articles for wikipedia to find out about these organizations? PLBounds (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the whole process takes a lot to learn. If you need help check out the Teahouse and there are folks there that can help you improve this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, I will denfinitely go to the Teahouse PLBounds (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article so far leaves much to be desired, both in terms of sources (or rather their absence) and style ("a Swiss company in Switzerland"). Also, from a notable Zurich company I would expect to appear in the German-language section first, although it's not necessarily. Nevertheless, removal, in my opinion, is too radical, as honesty in paid contributions should not be demotivated. And that's some incentive to learn the principles of Wikipedia. KhinMoTi (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPEAG and the other organizations in the Zurich43 family are very international. Virtually all publications are in English. PLBounds (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify article has sourcing and other issues, but I’m loathe to smash the delete button, as I’m not seeing a clear lack of notability. I’m particular concerned since many sources will inevitably be in Swiss German or German, and so I cannot personally do a quality review of everything. Let us lean on preserve principles, the article can be improved. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPEAG and the other organizations in the Zurich43 family are very international. Virtually all publications are in English. I am seeking help from an electronics engineering expert in the USA to choose appropriate resources. PLBounds (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about Swiss German/German was because I was pondering if there was media coverage of the company in Switzerland, which could help establish notability. Is there any in-depth Swiss media coverage of the company? For example, a profile in a major Swiss business publication? Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a .ch web search, not much of anything turned up. Either in Gnews or in general. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in English or in French, beyond purchasing offers from the Canadian gov't that they've bid on or various job sites. A search of .ch websites only brings up their site and various job offers. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really nothing found in English? The whole SPEAG website is in English. Yes, the company is located in a German-speaking city, but the scientists and engineers are hired from an international pool of applicants. PLBounds (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are no sources covering the company that I can find. Their website can't be used for notability purposes here. Having a website is hardly notable these days. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources meet these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Give the author opportunity to learn the ropes and time to establish notability (or not). ResonantDis_tortion 16:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say draftify, but I can't find any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 26 March 2023 (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.