Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowe Bucharest


 * 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   no consensus. Merging may be an option.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lowe Bucharest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I see no evidence that this particular subsidiary of Lowe Worldwide meets the WP:CORP standards. It's a nice piece of advertising by a possible employee, but not an encyclopedic topic. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an artciel about Lowe's expansion in Romania and it does meet the WP:CORP standards. This is not advertising, the article mentiones sources and cold data. There is no direct or indirect advertisement and it builds on the same structure as pages written for other local subsidiaries of Lowe. Through Lowe, the Romanian market opened for advertising, after the communistic regime, lowe was one of the pioneers. This is important, encyclopedially and also business wise. - Kundahala Talk 11:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "sources" used are rather thin: a few routine reports about profits and acquisitions that never normally attract notice from this encyclopedia. And the one vaguely notable-sounding claim, that this was "one of the first advertising agencies in Romania", is both uncited and easily disprovable. The first advertising agency in Romania was that of David Adania, established in 1880 &mdash; a full 113 years before Lowe Bucharest. Moreover, there were numerous ad agencies in Romania following World War I. It wasn't even the first Romanian ad agency after the fall of Communism; that was Centrade in 1990. So I really don't see any particular claim to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 18:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct, it should be saying is was one of the first adv. agencies after the fall of communism, I will change that. Regarding your claims for notability, I think maybe you are confusing notability with universality. This is a page about Lowe Bucharest and the notability of the information should be compared against this objective, not against a larger one. Same goes for already existing articles about other offices of Lowe in other countries such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe_Lintas or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe_Roche. And the examples can go on. They surely meet the WP:CORP or else they wouldn't be existing there. As with the info about the other offices, which alredy have a short and comprehensive description, this page should too. Of course it can be improved. I plan to add more info about notable campaigns done by Lowe in Romania. However, one cannot do that if the page is deleted. So maybe, instead of suggesting deletion, you might suggest how to improve it, it seems more constructive. Thank you - Kundahala Talk 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

... And just one more thing. I see you commenting upon my sources: Holmes Report and PR Week are m&a internationally known and respected publications. If they are "thin" then maybe rri.ro, a website which only locals know is also thin? - Kundahala Talk 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:WAX: yes, we have other articles about Lowe branches, but those are also quite spammy, and the fact that they haven't been nominated for deletion doesn't indicate they should be there.
 * My point was not that publications like PRWeek are unreliable. It's that not everything they publish is necessarily in-depth coverage. (This is true of any magazine of newspaper, no matter how respected or circulated.) What you've cited as sources are routine news briefs that this encyclopedia never normally bothers to notice. That's the sense in which the sourcing is thin.
 * I won't say how I found this out, but it's pretty clear the article creator has a conflict of interest. For the benefit of other participants here, she should, as "strongly encouraged" by our policy, disclose whether that's the case. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems quite clear from the affiliations that this is a major agency. Regardless of who wrote it, the article does not appear promotional.   DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point isn't what "affiliations" this branch has. It's if it's been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (emphasis added). I'd say the coverage goes no further than the routine. - Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Lowe Worldwide. Same probably true of the articles about the other subsidiaries.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2011 (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.