Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwissCommunity.org

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SwissCommunity.org

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

I am not persuaded that the website is, of itself, notable. The Best of Swiss Web Awards is not exactly a significant thing, though have a pleasantly garish web site. I considered the speedy deletion route, but there is sufficient in the article to suggest a full discussion process would be far better. If it is truly notable it will survive, both here and online. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of the article and I'm thankful for every kind of advice. Though I would like to point out that "The Best of Swiss Web" award is the most important award in the Web Bussiness in Switzerland (see http://www.simsa.ch/engagements/best-of-swiss-web/ and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_Swiss_Web#cite_note-2). Furthermore, SwissCommunity.org is supported and promoted by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland. Thanks for your help!Cloe Gomez (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the issue with Wikipedia is never what is true. We care about what is notable and what is verifiable when it is notable. For the award to be important, reliable sources in whatever language have to report in thus. It is likely, but not certain, that the recipient of a notable award, IF the award is proven to be notable, is of itself notable. That could be sufficient to ensure the survival of the article, but woudl not be sufficient to preserve all the alleged facts in the article. References are vital. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I added some more References to the article. Which other alleged facts needs to be proofed?Cloe Gomez (talk) 14:00, 25 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 03:32, 28 March 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, KTC (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the website, as such, has received the sort of third-party coverage that would make it notable. If Organisation of the Swiss Abroad ever gets an article, it could be a section there, or a paragraph in Swiss diaspora, if that is spun off into its own article. Sandstein 19:12, 5 April 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.