Talk:Occhio

WP:THREE

Thank you, Cabrils, for assessing the draft. I think that Occhio is not run of the mill because it has received substantial coverage by the sources, instead of just passing mentions. These are some articles I cited that exclusively discuss Occhio in broad detail (i.e., they provide significant coverage), and they are all intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources:

• Reference 4 (Schmitt, 2019) is a feuilleton article published in the FAZ, one of Germany's top 10 newspapers. It explains the story of Occhio in detail and also includes information that indicates the company's notability, for example, the sources argues that Occhio has been one of the fastet-growing lighting companies. FAZ is undoubtably a reliable and secondary source, and what I would like to emphasise is that this is no sponsored advert, i.e., the source is intellectually independent of the company. It is even behind a paywall.

• Reference 7 (Brors, 2018) is a feuilleton article published in the Handelsblatt, also one of Germany's top 10 newspapers, but unlike FAZ, it has a stronger focus on contemporary economics. Thus, the article focuses more on Occhio's 2018 economic situation, but it also includes information regarding the company's history. Brors argues that Occhio is a market leader in Germany, further indicating notability. Of course, the article is also intellectually independent of Occhio, you'd actually have to buy the 13 April 2018 print issue of Handelsblatt Magazin to read this one.

• Reference 10 (Höppner, 2020), is more of a "recent economy news" article on Occhio published in the Handelsblatt. It discusses how Occhio found a market niche, and how it managed to become one of the few profitable lighting comapnies in the market. It gives an extensive overview of Occhio's (then) current market situation, including the EMH investment and Occhio's competition. Just as aforementioned sources, it provides significant (and only) coverage of Occhio.

• This 2017 article by Inga Griese, published in Die Welt, also gives a good overview of the company, and unlike the FAZ and Handelsblatt articles, it is not behind a paywall.

--Luca at Occhio (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Luca at Occhio,

Thanks for that information.

As I wrote in my comment, it would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Thank you Cabrils (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils,

I'm afraid WP:NCORP doesn't have numerated criteria in the suggested way. There is a primary criterion, as well as there is an alternate criterion for specific types of organisations, but I don't think there is a "WP:NCORP criteria #3". The primary criterion (WP:ORGCRIT) indicates that a company's notability is presumed if it has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I believe that WP:ORGCRIT is met because I have cited multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources with significant coverage, and the information derived from these sources is present in the draft. WP:ORGCRIT includes the WP:SIRS criteria that apply to the sources, i.e., in order to demonstrate that the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT are met, it must be plausible that, multiple cited sources are in fact secondary, intellectually independent, reliable with significant coverage of the subject. And I think that these criteria are all met for multiple (i.e. 3) sources (i.e., the sources referred to in footnotes 4, 7, and 10):

All of these sources are secondary (secondary may be presumed for FAZ and Handelsblatt; FAZ is the German New York Times, if you will), intellectually independent of the subject (paywall, a strong indicator of intellectual independence; notable journalists in all cases, no "associated writers"; no interviews), reliable (FAZ and Handelsblatt may be presumed reliable by default), and they all address the subject of the article directly and in depth (i.e., they don't discuss a totally different topic and just mention Occhio, instead, they all discuss Occhio, and without Occhio, the cited articles in these sources wouldn't exist in the first place).

I hope this helps. Thank you, --Luca at Occhio (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cabrils, I haven't heard back from you in a while. Again, it would be helpful if you could give me an update regarding WP:THREE. As mentioned, the sources referred to in footnotes 4, 7, and 10 (i.e., Schmitt 2010, Brors 2018, and Höppner 2020) all fulfil the WP:SIRS criteria found in WP:NCORP. They are all reliable, secondary sources, intellectually independent of the subject, and they all discuss the subject in significant detail. In my 10 June comment I explained why I believe that's the case.

Thank you, --Luca at Occhio (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Luca at Occhio,

My apologies for such a belated reply and thank you for pinging me again about this.

I believe the draft will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and so should be accepted per WP:AFCPURPOSE. Please feel free to submit the draft and ping me and I would be pleased to accept it into main space. Cabrils (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Hello Cabrils, I resubmitted the draft. Thank you for your reconsideration. --Luca at Occhio (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Note the author has declared on their Talk page they are being paid to produce this article. This may be of interest to @BoraVoro and @Prof.PMarini given your comments on Axel Meise (which page could arguably be resubmitted for deletion). Cabrils (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.
  Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like an advertorial, which Wikipedia is not.
  The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar corporations (see WP:ROTM).
  Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).
  Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)