Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightricks

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. I have discarded SPA votes which are mere assertions of notability. The keep argument that the products are notable therefore the company is do not overcome policy based voted based on notability standards for companies. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightricks

Lightricks (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)

De-Prodded. WP:PROMO content of a startup company that lacks coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is on the company's applications (most notably Facetune), and not on the company itself. Article creator also created articles for the new applications Enlight Photofox and Enlight Videoleap this month which I PRODed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of sourcing that demonstrate notability. After removing some advertising hype it seems perfectly fine to me.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gilabrand: Note - there is quite a bit of coverage - but most of it is on product releases and specifically Facetune. There is little coverage of the company itself (there is a Calcalist piece of their recent hiring spree, a few odds and ends, but fairly little on the company - which is a 4 year old startup with approx. 200-300 employees).Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
200-300 employees is a very sizeable company in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
200-300 employees (following a hiring spree in summer 2017) is a medium sized company in Israel, and is a typical size for a 3rd-4th round startup. The problem here is sourcing for WP:CORPDEPTH - there is quite a bit of coverage on various apps (Facetune in particular, releases of others - much of it PR of course) - but little on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really get the difference. The company develops apps. Hence the focus on what it develops. What else is missing? I am sure more information can/should be added, which is true for all Wikipedia articles. By why delete it? It is a Jerusalem hi-tech start-up, which in itself is notable--Geewhiz (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The app that received attention - has an article (and probably merits an article, it does have secondary coverage that isn't PR driven) - Facetune. Startups in Jerusalem aren't that rare (e.g. Mobileye would be a highly notable example). Startups of this size are rarely notable - with coverage being limited mainly to company interviews and product releases (in this case - since the products are consumer facing, there are quite a few product reviews) - that's not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Due to the nature of this company, WP:PROMO, is also an on-going issue that will creep back in here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to delete. Company has enough proven sources that aren't PR releases. They've won an Apple Design Award, Best iOS App of 2015, been used as a Facebook case study. As a member of the tech scene, these are certainly newsworthy accomplishments. A company like Polarr, is Wiki-worthy and this company has accomplished more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortex (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Kortex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written as WP:PROMO. Even though there are sufficient references the overall content of the article is written as an advertisement and most of the links are for self promotion. Hagennos (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi guys, I edited the article and added some information and sources. Would love to hear your thoughts. Lightricks two app series (which are based on same image processing technology- this is not a software house), Enlight and Facetune, have tens of millions of downloads, most of them paid (not trivial- not many apps in the world have so many paid downloads), the company has at least $10m revenues last year (see in the article) and they received significant recognition, including last week, when Enlight was chosen by Apple as one of nine apps of the year, and both apps were mentioned in USA Today as some of top paid iPhone apps worldwide. Bottom line, I think what the company has achieved is significant enough to keep the article. However, it might make sense to merge the article Facetune in the Lightricks article. Thanks. --Hmbr (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire line of argument above established notability for the apps (Facetune, maybe Enlight) - not the company. The Usatoday piece doesn't even mention the company name - it might be useful for establishing the notability of the app in question, not the company. Calcalist is a bit more in depth - providing a very short company history (1-2 paragraphs) on the side. Going over the sources in the article:
  1. These are about products, not the company (some are possibly PR release rehashes, and some don't even name the company) - [1], [2] [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],[11], [12], [13], [14]
  2. Product of the X announcements/downloads. Some do not mention the company, some are one-liner listing of the app names:[15], [16], [17], [18],
  3. Financing round (PR, routine, not grounds for notability of a company): [19].
  4. A bit of coverage of the company "on the side" or in a list (1-2 paragraphs): [20], [21], [22],
  5. Interview (not grounds for notability, and in a blog!): [23]
  6. Actual coverage of the company: [24]
  • In short - In all of this seemingly long list of references (some of whom have RS issues as well) - there is one in-depth piece (business insider) and 3 1-2 paragraph pieces (all in Israeli press). Coupled with PROMO and COI concerns (see - unblock request by article creator - this was not created "out of the blue"). This is a complete WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Facetune has grounds for notability, others applications are probably TOOSOON, and the company itself is a definite TOOSOON.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:Deletion policy alone which is the sole negotiator on an article, not whether anything can supersede it, because nothing can. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are not only many sources backing up this article but just by doing a simple google search of the company, one can find extensive coverage on it. Although lots in the article is about it's products, that information is still important (arguably the most important information about a company), there's little to no history of the company in the article because it's a relatively new company which doesn't automatically make it non-noteworthy. After reading the whole article it seemed fine, nothing about it seemed bias despite the tag at the bottom. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)— Grapefruit17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to provide some of this coverage that establishes notability? I've been unable to locate significant in-depth coverage in my BEFORE. The company does have a large internet footprint due to its applications being in various app-stores - which leads to coverage of the applications (re-hashed PR releases, reviews, product of the X, etc.). However what is required is more than passing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Globes, Haaretz, Business Insider, Calcalist, USA Today and Jerusalem Post are all reputable sources. If the editors who are trying to delete articles would spend as much time on improving them, Wikipedia would be a better place.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which USA Today piece? The one in the article - Facetune app solves need for facial retouching, USA Today? This opinion column doesn't even mention the company by name. The problem isn't verifying the company and its applications exist - but WP:CORPDEPTH. Facetune being notable (or other apps) does not confer notability on the software producer - WP:NOTINHERITED. The sole in-depth piece here is the business insider piece.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam on an nn private business. These are a dime a dozen, and this one does not stand out in any way. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPI. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - It is a notable Jerusalem based company - of which there are not so many... Made the Facetune app. I don't think you should delete it. It is notable not just for being a Jerusalem company but because it is the developer of the most popular paid photo apps in the world! Now the article is less PR. Ovedc (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)— Ovedc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @Ovedc: - might I ask what brought you (and I will note other hewiki editors) to this AfD? This company, notably, does not have a hewiki article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Icewhiz analysis of references. Also, references that rely or are based on company announcements fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. References that are company announcements made by partners equally fail. There are no intellectually independent references available - these are references that are published in reliable sources (which most are) but which also provide independent opinion or analysis of the company (none appear to exist). -- HighKing++ 12:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, looks like an important startup, with wide coverage in the press. The fact that the coverage is about its products is not actually a problem: when writing about a widely-covered product, it is an editorial decision whether to create an article about the product itself or about the company. On the other hand, even after many edits the article is still spammy and poorly written. It is clear that the original article was promotional. So I really hope someone fixes that (maybe me? Depends on available time), including axing some of the content entirely. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on company announcements and quotations, or has independent analysis or opinion)? If you can, I'll change my !vote - because when I looked, I couldn't find one. -- HighKing++ 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This sources were not cited on the article. Some independent sources are Jerusalem Post, Venture Beat, Digital Trend. Even, Apple Inc and Microsoft corp were cited by those sources. New product announcement is a part of promoting specific products, every company does that. What am i missing here? I don't know, what we are opposing here. -202.134.11.130 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those 3 are PR product announcements, mostly not about the company, and for the most part sourced/reprinted from a press release. You need sources covering the company indpendentally and critically, preferbly as the main subject of the coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response None of those references are intellectually independent. It is not enough to have a reference from a "reliable source" and meets the criteria for WP:RS, the reference must also be intellectually independent - that means, not regurgitates corporate press release, no articles relying solely on interviews and/or quotations from connected personnel (fails WP:ORGIND and should have independent analysis and/or opinion. What's the opposite of WP:HEY? Perhaps some of the Keep !voters here should take a fresh look at find 2 references... -- HighKing++ 21:53, 23 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightricks&oldid=1143884306"