Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lowepro
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason: Promotion. And: Notability of the whole company not seen. Article surely created by paid contractors. Tagremover (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that this article appears to have been created to promote this company, almost certainly as part of undisclosed paid editing. However, the company is likely to be notable as their products are well known and widely available. I've removed the clearly spammy prose from the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks better but: There are SO MANY companies worldwide in this or larger size, even with worldwide sold consumer products. I do not see the need of any bags listed. And the company is irrelevant. Tagremover (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many such companies. If people wish to create articles on them according to the policies of Wikipedia, they are free to do so. (And irrelevant to what?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete While the company is probably notable, this article appears to have been created in bad faith as part of an advertisement for the firm and I don't trust any of its content. As such, unless someone wants to re-write this article WP:TNT is in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Company is notable; article may have been created to promote the company but that's not relevent: it is incomplete but generally factual and largely concerned with corporate history rather than making unsupported claims about how wonderful the company is. I'm not sure what facts Nick-D has trouble believing, but specific issues can be dealt with by using tags, without deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This seems to have started as a PR puff, but it is so no longer. Sourcing still isn't marvelous but it has improved quite a bit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (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.