Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Magazine of Timepieces

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. I'm old enough to remember when "business-to-consumer magazines" were called "catalogs". :D A Train^talk 07:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Great Magazine of Timepieces

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

The creator contested the PROD on my talk page, so I've courtesy de-PRODed it. All the sourcing in existence is either connected to the organization, so excluded by WP:ORGIND or solely promotional, so excluded by WP:SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. I see no claim of notability for the magazine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep it. I am the author of the article. Obviously I think that the article deserves inclusion ;) With the respect to the volume of sales of the magazine, it should be kept in mind that is is a french/english speaking magazine, mainly dedicated to the 20% of switzerland that speak French, this is more or less 2 million people. The current distribution is thus roughly similar (as a ratio) to a US based magazine that sells 3,200,000 copies. This is also one of the only watch magazine that can be found in french speaking press house. Also, to make things clear, I'm not working for the magazine (I am not even in the same country).
Comment (before I make up my mind) A quarterly with a total press run of 23,000 in ten editions? It's also in English so the small-country-Switzerland argument doesn't work for me. One interview with the boss? I'm not seeing the WP:CORPDEPTH, really. Rhadow (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; the article is almost entirely promotional in nature. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV & WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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.