Suissenégoce: No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG.      Not only does it not have GNG references, it has zero references of any type except for themselves.    A search I did yielded the same results.  e North8000 ( talk ) 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] del no significant independent coverage.  - Altenmann >talk 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Searches do find some coverage of the coming and going of large firms such as Trafigura as members of this association, unfortunately mostly behind paywalls.  There is also a July 2023 item about Suissenégoce representing Swiss business sectors in talks with the US Treasury about sanctions compliance.  AllyD ( talk ) 08:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : You do not find coverage because Suissnégoce is the new name.  They changed their name some weeks ago.  Try „Swiss trading and Shipping Association“ or STSA as a search promt and you will discover it.  Please check the official business register in order to find out who is behind that organization : the big trading companies.  Vitol, Mercuria, Trafigura, ADM, Bunge, Cargil, Dreyfus, as well as globally active Banks and insurance companies.  To be clear : Suissenégoce is the lobby organization of a big business sector in Switzerland.  It is an important player in policymaking, active in Parliament as well as on governmental level.  Let's improve the article.  -- Sputniktilt ( talk ) 09:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who should be doing that? The millions of editors building the articles or the overworked handful of people at NPP/AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 ( talk • contribs ) 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. The article does not establish notability through references to substantial coverate in reliable independent sources. I'm fairly familiar with Swiss economic politics and have never heard of this group, not even in the context of recent public and political discourse about corporate responsibility in the commodities sector. I therefore doubt that they are as significant as the article implies. A Google News search about STSA finds nothing relevant. It is possible that significant coverage exists in trade publications, but someone would need to find and cite that. Sandstein 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @Sandstein : you are wrong, please do proper research work. Check the Site of Lobbywatch . Check the Website on Commodity trade of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs and who is referred there on the bottom of the page . Check the website of the Swiss parliament and you will discover many projects where STSA/suissenégoce is involved. Here's the full prompt . -- Sputniktilt ( talk ) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article shall remain .   Reliable independent sources are cited, ranging from independent press articles (AGEFI) to sources from parliament and government agencies.  They are transparently linked at the top.  The facts are on the table.  They are not all in English, but please bear in mind that this is not yet a criterion.  Facts should count.  Facts are available, for example, from experienced Wikiepdia authors who know their topics, have reliable sources and have been doing this here for over 15 years.  -- Sputniktilt ( talk ) 20:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Sputniktilt , editors are saying that the existing references are not sufficient. Instead of telling them they are not searching correctly, you should post links or citations to sources that could establish notability. That is the burden of editors advocating to Keep an article that others believe doesn't demonstrate notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Liz , you're right. That was my spontaneous reaction to Sandstein's comment. Such flippant remarks are simply annoying, especially when the author claims to know the field in question. I apologise for that. I have updated the article, and added relevant sources. -- Sputniktilt ( talk ) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  A review of recently added content would be helpful here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some coverage in Swiss sources [23] , [24] and [25] , most are trivial mentions.  We could probably cobble something together at least to meet BASIC.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I've tried several . ch searches, Gscholar as well- [26] .  The association exists, but it's only ever mentioned briefly.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:13, 22 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete