Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland

Shortcut
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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Switzerland. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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 cachewatch
Scan for Switzerland related AfDs

Scan for Switzerland related Prods
Scan for Switzerland related TfDs


Switzerland

Robert Leitz

Robert Leitz (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 looks like none of the sources cited are independent coverage of the subject. Mostly interviews, press releases, company profiles, and even articles written by him. So many of the links are dead that I suspect this was written by Gen AI. Additionally, I found zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind, which is quite remarkable (in a bad way). Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Article Concerns
Source Independence and Coverage
The article has been updated to address concerns about source reliability. Dead links have been removed, press releases and company-generated content have been eliminated, and independent third-party sources have been added. These now include reputable outlets such as Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, Basel Area, and Guy Spier.
Swiss Media Coverage
The limited coverage in mainstream Swiss media likely reflects the niche nature of iolite Capital and its international investment focus. As a boutique firm, its activities are more frequently covered in specialized financial and industry publications. Investments such as Bakkafrost and Jumbo Interactive have been covered in respected international outlets. Local acknowledgment is reflected in sources like Basel Area and Fundview.
AI-Generated Content Suspicion
The perception that the article may be AI-generated seems to have been driven by previously listed dead or weak sources. These have now been removed or replaced with active, verifiable, and reputable references. Itsallabout42 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How ironic that a comment that mentions a "perception that the article may be AI-generated" was itself written by AI. Delete per Oaktree. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points:
    Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:
    a) "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.
    b) "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.
    c) "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).
    d) "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.
    e) "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.
    f) "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.
    Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback, but would like to clarify a few points.
    Several points raised in the deletion rationale are factually incorrect:
    • "None of the sources are independent coverage of the subject" – False. The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, MOI Global, and commentary by Guy Spier. These are neither affiliated with the subject nor promotional in nature.
    • "Dead links" – Incorrect. All current references were tested and are functional. If any previous links were broken, they’ve been replaced with live, verifiable sources.
    • "Zero hits in Swiss newspaper sources of any kind" – Misleading. While Swiss national media may not have covered the subject in depth, this reflects the niche, international nature of Robert and his firm, not a lack of notability. Additionally, there is Swiss coverage, including Basel Area Business & Innovation (a recognized regional economic development agency) and Zefix (the official Swiss commercial registry).
    • "Only sources from Business Wire" – False. No sources from Business Wire are cited. All sources are editorial or institutional publications, not press release aggregators.
    • "Only one source is helpful" – Subjective. At least five sources provide substantial, independent insight into the subject’s professional background and activities. These meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable, verifiable, secondary coverage — including Forbes, Fundview, and MOI Global. It’s not nothing.
    • "The article was written by AI" – Mischaracterization. The article was manually written, with language refinement via AI tools due to the contributor’s non-native English. Content selection, structure, and sourcing were entirely human-led.
    Full disclosure: I am also using AI to smooth the language of this feedback given I am a non-native speaker. However, the essence of the feedback provided is clearly my own - as is the article. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AI-generated nonsense sourced mostly to company profiles and interviews. The only two decent sources (in Reuters and the Australian Financial Review) don't even mention him. Couldn't find anything else to suggest notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:
    Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.
    Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).
    "Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold. Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the six "independent, third-party sources" you mention:
    • Forbes: see WP:FORBESCON, plus this is an interview and therefore not independent of the subject
    • AFR: article doesn't mention Robert Leitz at all
    • IntraFish: no byline, probably sponsored content, also just repeats the aforementioned FORBESCON interview
    • Fundview: promotional and mostly quotes from Leitz
    • MOI Global: these are an article and a presentation by Leitz, not secondary coverage of him
    • Guy Spier: passing mention, also says that Leitz is an investor in the author's fund and is therefore not independent
    None of these meet the requirement of being significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which I do not see any indication that Robert Leitz meets. MCE89 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, your comment contains several factual errors:
    • Not AI-generated nonsense – The article was manually written. Language was refined using AI tools due to my being a non-native English speaker, but the content, structure, and sources were all human-curated.
    • Not “mostly company profiles and interviews” – The article cites multiple independent, third-party sources that are not affiliated with the subject, including: Forbes, Australian Financial Review, IntraFish, Fundview, Value Walk, MOI Global, Commentary by Guy Spier (a recognized value investor).
    • "Nothing else to suggest notability” – The subject is the founder of an international investment firm active for over a decade, with investments and commentary cited in credible financial and industry-specific outlets. His fund is among the largest shareholders in a variety of companies and is actively engaged in shareholder activism — including public campaigns and governance reform efforts in Canada and Australia. That may not warrant a front-page profile, but it clearly crosses the notability threshold.
    Itsallabout42 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sluice out the AI-generated crap (courtesy of now-indeffed Itsallabout42), and there's no actual there there. No evidence that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV, obvious WP:PROMO violation is obvious. Ravenswing 21:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naveen Singh Suhag (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)

Subject does not meet GNG. The sources are mostly not independent (press releases, interviews, a paper written by the subject, company profiles). The ToI article [1] might be sigcov of a company he founded, but the only parts about the subject are quotes from him. This [2] contains a four-sentence mention but really isn't focused on him. The only information I can find in Swiss media is that a person with his exact full name seems to have opened a Subway sandwich store in Langenthal, but the coverage all comes from one source (Berner Zeitung) and is mostly quotes. There are also two hits for his name in reports on judo competitions, far from sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 15:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Glauser

Christoph Glauser (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)

An associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete as he doesnt meet WP:NPROF, but seems to have some sort of public profile. However, I dont see many news articles about him (or at least dont have access in Canada) but lets see whether Toadspike can find anything more. --hroest 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
  • [3] A part-interview piece that has enough info about him to count towards the GNG. [4] [5] Plus two more with probably sigcov about him predicting the 2016 US election
  • It seems his doctoral thesis was edited down and published as a book, titled "Einfach blitzsauber: Die Geschichte des Staubsaugers". Yes, it is about the history of the vacuum cleaner. It was reviewed by: NZZ, 16 March 2002, "Der Staubsauger, das unbekannte Wesen" by Aiolfi S.; Berner Zeitung, later reprinted in the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, 27.10.2001, "Eine verstaubte Geschichte entstaubt", Franziska Egli; Tages-Anzeiger, "Staub als Thema", 16.10.2001, Walter Jäggi; Die Weltwoche, "Hauptsache, sauber", 11.10.2001, Benini Sandro; Le Temps, "Le grand nettoyage par le vide ou les cent ans de l'aspirateur", 29.08.2001, Isabelle Cerboneschi; and short reviews in the Solothurner Zeitung and Blick. This book is, apparently, notable.
  • Non-independent coverage of ArgYou [6] and a related interview [7], which has a bio of him too.
  • Glauser was quoted as an expert on brand image in an article in Le Temps titled "Les petits nouveaux et le storytelling", 17 June 2022, by Matthias Niklowitz – this article also appeared in the Handelszeitung in German, but I can't find either version online. Similar expert quotes of Glauser alongside sigcov of ArgYou here [8]. I've found quite a few other instances where he is quoted as an expert in a variety of papers, but I won't list them all here to save time and space.
  • ArgYou seems to be regularly cited as a source of data, with articles often mentioning Glauser's name as well. One example is this newswire piece from Keystone-SDA, reprinted in a bunch of papers [9].
Sorry for spamming all these links here. I haven't quite gone through all the newspaper database results (I got distracted by other stuff) but I think there's enough to keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain@Hannes Röst Would you like to take a look at the above? I think the first three sources, linked in the first bullet point, should be enough. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look, and still not impressed, although understand if others disagree. That an internet marketing expert can get some fireside chats published in some blog-like website covered in adds doesn't seem sufficient to me for WP:GNG. The research claims made in those articles are likely to be factually true, but don't demonstrate that WP:NACADEMIC is reached. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which website you are referring to, but all of the sources I cited are reliable Swiss newspapers (except maybe Blick, which is a tabloid, but one with a decent reputation regardless). The level of advertising is not a measure of reliability, though if you like I can email you the print versions of nearly all of the sources I cited, which have far fewer ads. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (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)

The significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [10][11][12], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [13], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.
    Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)
    I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you specified contain information about him. But the information specified there does not give him significance according to any of Wikipedia's criteria of significance.
    When some aristocrat or any other famous person dies, they write about him in the news.
    But neither the sources nor the article show significance according to which the article could be saved. RobertVikman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's coverage of his activities as a socialite and of his bizarre death. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not provide anything other than the cause of death and genealogy. What significance criterion does this article meet? RobertVikman (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Switzerland&oldid=1289460347"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.