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. Without prejudice to undeletion/recreation if legitimate sources are found in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpina Watches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A web search doesn't turn up any significant coverage in independent sources - mainly just retailers. Current references are a blog post and a user-generated source. Peacock (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:DIRECTORY. Searching turns up a few mentions here and there (perhaps their advertising was notable back in the day?) but nothing significant. Nolelover (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet NCORP. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reading German-language Wikipedia's more detailed article de:Alpina (Uhrenmarke), I think it might be notable for English Wikipedia, too, but the article would need expansion. Per the German article, the company was originally a cooperative ("Genossenschaft") which in 1905 had a membership of more than 20 companies. It seems that it was historically important for the Swiss watchmaking business, until the big Swiss "watch crisis" of the 1970's (that crisis itself would merit an article, lots have been published about it). Apparently, now it's just a brand owned by Frédérique Constant which in turn is owned by Citizen Watch, but if somewhat expanded, I would keep the article. But I don't feel like investing my time into this subject right now. For what it's worth, the German article, per the references, seems to be based on an English book called Clock and Watch Trademark Index of European Origin. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I note that the article used to be considerably longer, but was extremely shortened by Froglich in 2017 with the comment "chainsawed 95% of the article for massive spampuffery and probable copyvio)". Maybe "chainsawed" a bit too much? The whole history of the company/cooperative was lost in the process. Maybe parts could have been kept (unless indeed everything was a copyvio). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article quotes some of the same stuff that was on that old version of the page and says it's from Alpina's website, so that may be where the copyvio is from, likely copied from a timeline somewhere. And I believe that the crisis you're talking about is the Quartz crisis, no? Anyway, the more that I read the more I do think that perhaps the original cooperative might be notable, but it would be a real labor of love from someone who has access to sources like that book. As of now, the current company only has listings, retailers, etc. Nole (chat·edits) 21:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolelover: Yes indeed the Quartz crisis - and I see that even German Wikipedia's article is at de:Quarzkrise, but here in Switzerland (I'm living in a traditionally watch-making region), I heard it mostly just called the "Uhrenkrise" (watch crisis), so it didn't occur to me to search for an article under "quartz crisis"... thanks for the pointer. And I agree with your assessment that the article would need "a real labor of love". With the current state of the article, it's understandable that people don't see the potential notability. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2019 (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.