Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luma Health

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. Sandstein 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Bad case of WP:REFBOMBING but none of the sources meet WP:ORGCRIT except maybe one from the Business Journals. Everything else is about funding, brief mentions, or general announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure whether the funding pieces do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps you meant that it's a single event, thus it is not significant? I see there are multiple reliable secondary sources from May 2018, May 2019, August 2019, September 2019. So the references do not revolve around a single event. Moreover, the pieces on The Wall Street Journal and VentureBeat were done by staff reporters, independent of the subject, and both articles provide significant coverage of the company. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are general announcements about recent funding so the WSJ and VB articles would not be considered significant when it comes to company notability. I agree that the sources are reliable, but they don't provide anything in-depth that can establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand what you're saying, but I still stand with my earlier decision. Both articles don't just mention the funding rounds but go more in-depth about the platform, it's history, successes. Moreover, it looks like there are other non-funding-related sources available, like this one, which were not added to the article. Perhaps it could be tagged with {More citations needed} or {Sources exist}, but I leave it up to you. — Kstone999 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coolabahapple, I created the article and I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines. Do you think WSJ would make a post about a non-notable company's funding or announcements? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• hi KartikeyaS343, not sure why you have pinged me about this as i have only added this afd to some subject/project lists, i do not have knowledge of WSJ reporting policy, and have not looked at the article sources, anyway, where i am it is early morning (definitely not early evening/5.30pm:)) so need some zzzzzzzzzs... Coolabahapple (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad! I mistakenly pinged you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article consists of frame contents only, i.e. is written surrounding the subject not about the subject. I'm sure there are millions of healthcare companies in the world, and web has become a common focus among them. What's unique or important about this company? flowing dreams (talk page) 08:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the article now. There are in-depth coverages which I added in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill private company going about its business. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there are in-depth coverages in independent sources within its industry which makes it pass WP:ORGIND. It is not a B2C company that it will have huge press mentions. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones pass WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. Please, check [1], [2], [3] etc. and all of these discusses the services provided by the company. It has been cited in Journal of Medical Internet Research as well. Do you think the WSJ would cover a funding of non-notable business? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked do I think WSJ would cover funding of a non-notable business? Why yes, yes I most positively would! Also, it not only has to meet ORGCRIT, but references (for the purposes of establishing notability) must also meet CORPDEPTH and most importantly WP:ORGIND. Anyway, this article in HIT Consultant is based on an announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND, this Enterprise Talk reference also fails ORGIND as it is clearly written with large input by the company/client as a "use case" (and happens to be the only "use case" on the website...) but more importantly, does not provide any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the MobiHealth News reference is also based on a company announcement and relies entirely on material/quotes from the company, also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Usual variety startup 'invest in us/buy us' spam. Sources are either primary or business-as-usual. Fails WP:NORG. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Do you think these are spam? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. This Business Insider article could be a good reference since analyst reports are regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability so long as the report provides in-depth information on the company and isn't a mere mention-in-passing. Seeing as the company is explicitly mentioned, I think this is a good reference. This VentureBeat reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement. I've dealt with this previously, fails ORGIND. This Biz Journals reference fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on material provided by the company/client and is the usual spam/pr churnalism we see in business "journalism" and what tightening the guidelines in WP:NCORP was set to explicitly avoid for the purposes of establishing notability. Finally, this Business Insider reference is marked as PR and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. So there's potentially one good reference. We need two for a company to be notable. Any other research reports? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Do you think this WSJ article [9] adds anything to it? I believe WSJ wouldn't do churnalism. Please, let me know. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely based on a funding announcement, counts as "trivial coverage" (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and doesn't count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's potentially one research report available which discusses the company but I am unable to access a copy. An article requires "multiple" references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the other references meet the criteria (most are the usual churnalism) and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP but I'm happy to revisit my !vote is another good reference turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at these researches and reports: [10], [11], [12], [13] and specially these:[14], [15], and [16] ? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks KartikeyaS343, this research resport covers Luma in depth so that research report, along with this one mentioned earlier means we've met the requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the sources. I have added another journal citation in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its got coverage in reputable independent sources like Healthcare IT News and the San Francisco Business Times.Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly Strong delete - When I did Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase searches for "Luma Health" on Google News and Google web search, the only articles I found were related to their venture capital funding raises, employee hires and departures, and signing of business deals with other companies—all of which amount to trite, trivial, and inconsequential matters. At the same time, the rest of the results were Yellow Pages-esque directory listings. There were only two articles from the BizJournals and San Francisco Business Times that may provide a substantive enough article to meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIG standards to establish WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's doubtful. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RS. This subject passes WP:GNG independent sources exist so it passes WP:ORGIND. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, They have to be WP:SIG significant coverage - at least five of which provide significant, over-arching and exhaustive works on the company's history. They can't just mention the company in a tangential way or cover it from routine business, VC financing, and partnership perspectives. I still say it's a 'strong delete, though that's not to say someone is welcome to re-create it in the future and have it go through AfC process. We're drowning in WP:CORPSPAM and, to improve, Wikipedia's got to get smaller. -DM

Have you checked [17], [18], and [19]? These are not routine mentions or about fundings. I still didn't get the answer to if publisher like WSJ started making news about non-noatble businesses! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, Thanks. Ref #17 is a company-commissioned survey (trivial or trite coverage), #18 is a directory listing of select company executives as far as I see it, and #19 might qualify. I haven't checked the journal article, but if it's not about the company. it doesn't qualify. The company might be producing notable medicines, which could be notable, but that doesn't mean it is notable. Its researchers/employees would, however, be notable.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. Could you please check if any of these: [20], [21], [22], [23] qualifies? These were the other sources I found using Google searches. Regards.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added news sources with a citation from the Journal of Medical Internet Research. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Well, here's my two cents: a few of the sources are merely listings (e.g. Bloomberg), while others (WSJ, Business review/journal articles; medical journal) are both reliable and substantial. I'm leaning towards keeping because, overall, there is in fact significant coverage of the corporation and its services. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, Do they provide substantial coverage about the company, more than just tangential or passing mentions, and more than just capital raises, business partnerships, strategic alliances, asset sales or purchases, executive announcements, and the like—all of which are considered "trivial coverage"—such that we could write at least a C- or B-class article of sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH?Doug Mehus (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial. IF these media companies charge you, there must be something good behind the curtain, right? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, LOL, that's disappointing Bloomberg has started charging for access to the articles. Many Bloomberg articles, though, tend to relate to corporate earnings announcements, merger speculation, asset sale rumours, and product announcements—none of which is substantial. I don't think my academic library subscribes to Wall Street Journal, so probably can't look it up. Have you tried using Sci-Hub or Academia.edu to look up the journal article?

Dmehus, *sigh* I can't, since I'm neither teaching nor enrolled in grad school full-time this semester. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If we ignore some of the business listings and company profiles, there are sources that meet both WP:RS and WP:IS. As HighKing pointed out with the research reports. I'm subscribed to the SF bizjournals and can attest that there is enough focus on the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV.  Centron   X   11:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CentronX.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What I see was a non-notable run-of-the-mill company that is lacking in reliable sources according to acceptable standards. An editor added more to apparently bolster the notability and I see two references, dated the same day, that mention raising 6 million and 6.3 million and I wager these are referring to the same money. There are at least five references that mention raising 16 million. On just a scan I see seven out of sixteen references on two items and this jumps out as source bombing to show notability. Justification that it is not a B2C company, so not going to receive a lot of coverage, is a reason to consider notability and not an excuse to make exceptions. I make my determination on the lack of reliable independent sources and the rationale of User:Flowing dreams (what is unique that stands out from thousands of other start-ups?), User:K.e.coffman (fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH) but I also base my decision on a logical opinion. User:HighKing almost persuaded me, but by that count there are only two sources that advance notability. I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. I have seen where it has become a community accepted standard to find at least 3 reliable, independent sources. An added 15 sources that were checked still resulted in only two that was acceptable to advance notability. This tells me we should consider the independence of sources more than industry related sources. This is an acceptable number but when I see "The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial.", I cringe. That is a horrible rationale that it is there, but we can't see it unless we pay, but it "must" be substantial. Corporate money should not dictate or water-down our policies and guidelines. At the very least the discussion shows me it is too soon, and comments by User:Dmehus (I did a search) are accurate. A headcount (not how things should go) show 8 to seven with my !vote so either a slim margin to keep or the rationale for delete is persuasive to bring a closure of no consensus or maybe even delete. It is close but I think two sources out of sixteen on the article, and many listed here that fail to establish notability, should be taken into account that notability is so far lacking. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what I understood is that you are basically referring to the rationales I gave earlier but it has been re-listed after that. If you believe there are at least 2 sources that advance notability, then I can check again if I can find more sources. Can you please advise? Thank you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Thank you for your diligence. I would welcome the occasion of not deleting articles, more so than can be imagined. If you find an additional source, that follows our sourcing guidelines towards notability, I would most certainly change my !vote and I am sure a WP:Hey would be considered. Note; Please bracket a user you are specifically addressing (KartikeyaS343). I am about to leave and just happen to check my email or would have missed this. Also, this has been opened awhile so if you are successful, and it should close, ping me for sure. We can then possibly check with other involved editor for an opinion on reopening. Here's wishing you luck, Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to your comment I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. Just so that you know and it has been discussed on other AfD pages, the guidelines state that there must be "multiple" references (that meet the criteria for establishing notability) and consensus on other AfD pages is that there must be at least two. You say consensus on other pages is three - can you point to this consensus somewhere? Having been involved in hundreds of AfD I have never seen 3 suggested anywhere. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's worthy of clarifying. I certainly argue what constitutes "multiple" qualifying sources to be at least 3, not 2 as that is far too low to establish notability, and ideally at least 5.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2019 (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.