Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Lowepro
AfDs for this article:


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

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2022 February 6. Note to participants and closing admin: please read through the arguments presented at the previous AfD first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable range of coverage presented that whilst not mainstream is clearly substantial. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification For me, there was some confusion at the last AfD over whether WP:NCORP applied to a "brand" but after discussion at DRV it became clear to me that a brand is essentially a marketing manifestation of a company or a family of products/services and as such would fall under NCORP. Is this generally accepted or are some editors leaning in a different direction? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm generally opposed to that, but as was noted this one is a bit weird because it *was* a company for a long time. That said, I think the brand easily meets the GNG and probably meets the heightened scrutiny of WP:CORP.  I have to do some further research on the sources (which may not happen in time for this AfD, this week is busy) Hobit (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say NCORP applies to brands, but I would support keeping of brand articles if multiple products could individually meet NCORP as well (better to have one article describing the brand + its products than many micro stubs). But no comment yet on if this meets that bar (or normal NCORP). Jumpytoo Talk 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think NCORP applies to brands and clearly there are other editors that feel the same as I do. There's a lot of coverage on Lowepro that I've found since the last AfD. In addition to what I added to the article already, I found this and this. NemesisAT (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you articulate why you don't believe NCORP applies? For me, a brand is essentially "marketing" and is usually synonymous with a company name (but not always) and products (usually). Ta. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The article provides 1,056 words about Lowepro. The article notes: "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country.  And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa. ... Lowepro started in 1981 as a division of Lowe Alpine Systems, an outdoor-gear maker in Colorado. That company was started by three brothers who were outdoor enthusiasts."</li> <li> The article provides 220 words of coverage about Lowepro. The article notes: "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."</li> <li> The article notes: "Lowepro was originally part of a company founded in about 1967 by Colorado-based Greg Lowe, whose innovations included internal-frame backpacks. That part of the company became Lowe Alpine, owned by U.K.-based Equip Outdoor Technologies Holdings, which also has the Rab brand of outdoor clothing and sleeping bags, founded by British mountaineer Rab Carrington. Lowepro is owned by DayMen Canada Acquisition ULC, based in Luxembourg, with an office in Toronto. The company's main products were originally designed for professional photographers, but Lowepro is expanding to build packs for drones, students and travelers."</li> <li> I consider a brand to be a set of products. The brand Lowepro has received significant coverage through numerous product reviews so meets Notability (organizations and companies). Reviews of Lowepro products that make up the Lowepro brand:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </li></ol> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lowepro to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.