Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowe Roche


 * 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 keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Lowe Roche

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Blatant PR and Advertisement. Not notable DreamlarT (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep no valid rationale for deletion provided. This is a 4-sentence stub about a defunct advertising company (and has been for a decade) - it is certainly not "Blatant PR and Advertisement". Walt Yoder (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. How can it be PR/advertising when the company hasn't operated since 2015? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reasoning as ScienceMan. -- Grapefanatic  (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. In addition, the subject also meets WP:NCORP as well. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (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.