Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss thiss

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 Speedy delete and salted by RHaworth. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss thiss

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

Recreation of previously deleted article, with only a minor difference in name. The previous AfD, which resulted in deletion and salting of the name was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss Thiss. And from what I can see it's no more notable now than it was a few months ago. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined G4 speedy as there are differences, including references that weren't there in the earlier version Swiss Thiss. One at Stern is a dead link - there may be a fault there. I don't know PresseAnzeiger.de, but we can forget the YouTube and Twitter links. Peridon (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing on Stern about Swiss Thiss. Searches on stern.de on all possible variations of the name return nothing, so either Stern deleted the article, even from their archive, or it never existed. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the Stern ref in the article with {{Dead link}}, I also removed a (possibly deliberately) misleading reference that had absolutely nothing to do with Swiss Thiss (thiss.ethz.ch, where THISS stands for "Technische Hochschulen und Innovationen – Start-ups und Spin-offs", a research project at the "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" in Zürich that ended in 2004, five years before Swiss This was established...). Meaning that all that is left is Youtube, Twitter and a mention of dubious value in PresseAnzeiger. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can strike the two references that lead to PresseAnzeiger too, they're the company's own press-releases, not third-party references. Here's a Google-translation of a page where PresseAnzeiger present themselves: "PresseAnzeiger - successful online PR and press work! You can publish your press release for free here.". Meaning that all that is left is Youtube and Twitter. And the impression that the references to Stern, thiss-ethz.ch and PresseAnzeiger were added as a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This article doesn't display a reasonable level of notability. Its lack of content in general speaks to this for me. A notable company would have a fair amount to list but a lack of products or anything remarkable keeps me from requesting a user to expand on this company. For its lack of content and ability to make me want to know more I deem this to be unremarkable and not an encyclopedia article. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 06:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this name variant as per the March 2013 AfD conclusion and the research above failing to find the latest version providing better evidence of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2013 (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.