Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The5th Watches

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The5th Watches[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)

Non notable organization falling short of WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only shows press releases, sponsored posts & perharps 1 reliable source (which doesn’t show in-depth coverage). Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:FORBESCON the Forbes article is unreliable. manofmany.com looks unreliable for notability (and no discussions at RSN). Money Ink probably unreliable per RSN. That leaves us with news.com.au. GNG not met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it is a noteworthy article it is a big player in the watch industry in the same category as mvmt and Daniel Wellington New link's added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.219 (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the sketchiness of the sourcing. Two of the references are Forbes articles. Which aren't reliable. It looks like there's a couple of references to blogs, and one that's a product hype commentary. So, there's nothing really here that passes NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2020 (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.