Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lititz Watch Technicum

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. A rough balance of views on each side, and neither is so lacking in policy based arguments that I should assign a different weighting. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lititz Watch Technicum[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Technology, and Pennsylvania. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to promote the school and it is written like an advert. Shadow345110 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per failure above. Qcne (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is newspaper coverage. Here is coverage in a magazine covering the jewelry industry. The building was designed by Michael Graves, a highly notable achitect. Here is coverage of the building's distinctive architecture. Here is significant coverage in Town & Country, the oldest general interest magazine in the US. As for promoting the school, it is tuition free. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Additionally, the school article sounds promotional and the article has been abandoned and no edits have been made for 5 years between 2018 to 2023. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that an article hasn't been edited in five years is not a valid reason to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.proquest.com/docview/236230255/E4EE37594B01488APQ/14, https://www.proquest.com/docview/253066291/E4EE37594B01488APQ/3, https://www.proquest.com/docview/196633746/E4EE37594B01488APQ/, https://www.proquest.com/docview/375289471/E4EE37594B01488APQ/, etc. There is some primary material to varying degrees across the articles, but enough to support notability and verifiability in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anywhere near enough for this to be notable. Ant1thes1ser (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through Cullen's sources first, they're not exactly sterling. The first is barely SIGCOV, the second is perhaps alright but looks somewhat like a rewritten press release (see "state-of-the-art", contact info in the last graph), the third is basically a short database entry, and the Town & Country article mostly isn't about the school. Indefensible's sources seem more defensible. Central Penn Business Journal looks fine, as does Columbian, National Jeweler, and Intelligencer Journal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article about a profit-making company (not a "building") 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. I agree with Sdkb above that Cullen's sources fail the criteria, but I disagree that Indefensible's meet the criteria. The Central Penn Business Journal article has a lot of irrelevant information about a general shortage of watchmakers but gets all pertinent in-depth information *about the company* from Charles Berthiaume (school director and Rolex senior VP) and therefore has no "Independent Content" about the company and fails ORGIND. The Columbian article similarly has a lack of "Independent Content" and focuses instead on the classes (products) and interviews students (customers) with all information provided by affiliated sources, fails ORGIND. Thhe National Jeweler gets all its information from a VP of Rolex (basically an interview) who are affiliated with the school, also fails ORGIND. Finally the Intelligencer Journal article also gets all its information from either Berthiaume, a school-produced catalogue, the project developer of the building project or the architect - all affiliated with the topic company, also fails ORGIND. I'm unable to locate anything that meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND requires that the author and content be independent. It does not require that all of the author's interviewees be unaffiliated with the organization. And examining the sources reveals plenty of unaffiliated sources.

The Central Penn Business Journal article does not read to me as churnalism — it includes unaffiliated sources like the director for the American Watch Association commenting on the context for the school's establishment, and it paints a not-very-rosy picture of the industry. The Columbian article, on closer investigation, is actually a report from the Associated Press, a news agency with a strong reputation for independent journalism (and the according RSP greenlight), that ran in reputable newspapers including the Hartford Courant, Cincinnati Enquirer, and Billings Gazette. It quotes from students, who are likely to be more objective than administrators, and lines like The learning process can be long and laborious make clear that it's not a puff piece. The Lancaster Intelligencer piece includes interviews with the director of Columbia's School of Horology (which appears to be an unaffiliated institution) and the director/curator of the National Watch Museum. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please revisit the page as I've added sources from 2001, 2010, and 2017 from Newspapers Extended. I think you'll find the WP:SIGCOV of the school and its operations you're looking for. Cheers! BBQboffin (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Cullen328 and BBQboffin are more than sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet the general notability guideline.Jacona (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a trade school and normally trade schools are considered commonplace in AFD discussions here, but this isn't an everyday trade school. It is a school established in the near past to help keep alive an ancient trade. It's well-covered in reliable nationwide media (AP) and in the journal of the trade. Clearly meets NCORP with the recent HEYMAN additions (Thanks). 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been able to find sources for this article like this one. If there are signicant sources then we should keep these articles. Justwatchmee (talk) 23:18, 24 August 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.