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 redirect to Brunswick Boat Group. If anyone wants to merge anything, it can be drawn from the redirect's history. Deor (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowe Boats[edit]

Lowe Boats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businesses are not inherently notable. The sources for this particular article are all first party sources. In fact, they are the company's website. I would generally suggest a merge to Brunswick Boat Group, but with the amount of small boat companies that belong to them; that article would be flooded soon. I propose to delete this article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect/merge: Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. A little much but the English Wikipedia is supposed to lean inclusionist. This article by itself is garbage but it could be summarized in the Brunswick article. Two sources are weak data mining sites but are not the company website. B137 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per B137. Me5000 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a notable recreational boat company, part of Genmar Holdings. Easily passes GNG. I've added quite a few citations from Forbes, Bloomberg Business, Boating Industry and other hard publications to demonstrate without a doubt. The Dissident Aggressor 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I might like to switch to a week keep per Dissident Aggressor's additions to the page. B137 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out that the Genmar Holdings affiliation does not assert notability. In fact, that company was considered the second largest manufacturer of recreational boats, so they naturally would have a lot of companies underneath them. The Forbes link does nothing for either Genmar or Lowe Boats; but it was written for Genmar, not for Lowe. The link is a list type link, that shows the company's place, that's nothing to do with notability, especially not for Lowe Boats. The Boating Industry mentions are just that, mentions. They do not offer an in depth look into this company. The company itself didn't make headlines anywhere, it hasn't been written about in third party, non affiliated sources (i.e., non boating publications for one). Now that an article for Genmar Holdings exists, I could support a merge to that article; but as it stands now, this company doesn't stand up. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Brunswick Boat Group, where it's already listed under Subsidiaries, and doesn't need anything more than that. Google search shows no evidence of independent notability. The Forbes reference is a single-word listing as a division of another company. The Bloomberg reference isn't much better; it's one short paragraph of perfunctory, directory-style, information about the company being a subsidiary of Brunswick. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Brunswick Boat Group, per above editors. Nothing to show stand-alone notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Thanks to User:DissidentAggressor for adding sourcing, but what we have is mostly routine business news. Since there's a perfectly acceptable merge/redirect target, this material should go there until something significant directly detailing appears. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.