Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luma Health (2nd 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 delete. Sandstein 06:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health

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)

Advertisement of a company G11, Notability UK-E79 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)— UK-E79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --KartikeyaS (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are mainly press releases or unreliable promotional websites where you can get article about your company published. Easily fails WP:ORGCRIT. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 08:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Afd has a long discussion particularly on sources. Can you please state which sources you think are press releases and from promotional websites where you can get your article published? KartikeyaS (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, re "which sources are press releases", MedCity News "San Francisco-based patient communication company Luma Health announced Tuesday", "In the news release announcing the fundraise, the company stated." Pulse 2.0 "Luma Health announced it raised $16 million in Series B equity funding", "Luma Health formalized its partnership with Epic and announced additional EHR integration partnerships." Vator.com "On Tuesday, the company announced that it raised a $16 million Series B round of funding." Essentially those articles are just summaries of their press releases, with interviews from capital investors or the CEO talking about how great the company will be in the future intermingled in. In no way is that neutral or secondary. It's essentially just a ruse to get investors. Btw, according to WP:NCORP partnerships, found raising, and new product announcements are not usable to establish notability. Id say especially funding. As essentially every startup gets funding when it is first starting out. So, there's nothing unique or notable about it. Especially with these kinds of companies. If you get rid of the four or so articles on that and the few others about products or whatever, there isn't really much left to actually establish notability with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get your poing regarding WP:NCORP but do you think a non-notable start-up would get a coverage in the Wall Street Journal[1]? It has been used in several analysis[2] as well. Not all references are press release. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say all the references where press releases, just a good portion of them. Which still matters. Even if it's technically every source. As far as the Wall Street Journal article, it's still about trivial coverage of venture capitalist founding. Which again, is trivial and not usable to establish notable. The source doesn't matter, because notability isn't inherited. Although I can't directly speak to the other source since I don't have access to it, going by the summary it seems like trivial coverage also. Since it's not specific to the company and more about "patent software" in general. Even if it is in-depth though, it's still based an analyzes of future projections of "patent software in 2020." Which doesn't meet notability either IMO. As its about notability now, not "hey, I think this software will be popular and notable in a year. So lets have an article about it now." Generally, you have to be careful when it comes to things discussing future events. Otherwise, anything could potentially be worthy of an article due to maybe being notable at some point. Anyway, if you get rid of the venture capital stuff and product descriptions from the article your just left with a stub and WP:GNG says "editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Which this article would be. I tend to air more on the side of caution about permanent stubs then others might, especially if the subject also lacks reliable in-depth coverage, but other users are free to take a different slant with it then I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 Thank you for the detail clarification and I do agree with the fact that we should not have an article on the basis of having a potential to become notable at future but as per WP:GNG, there is in-depth coverage here.--KartikeyaS (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:Advert. Mostly based on press releases or trivial coverage of those press releases. Dorama285 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly remove all press releases and Afd is not cleanup. Please, let me know if I'm missing something.KartikeyaS (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I'm a bit suspicious of the nom's sudden interest in deletion, concur with the above !votes - heavily cited to press releases, the rest is WP:ROUTINE coverage. creffett (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I recommended this for deletion last year which resulted in no consensus. I still do not think it meets WP:NCORP as the references fail WP:ORGCRIT. For instance, the WSJ piece is a general announcement and there is no depth to the piece. So yes, WSJ would talk about a non-notable company if you remember that some companies are notable in the world of venture funding despite not being notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the WSJ might have something useful. It will be good if any editor who has access to it can help us here. Also, if you check the previous Afd, HighKing pointed out that it passed both GNG and NCORP based on this reseach report. I would like to know your view please on this?--KartikeyaS (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See nothing in this promotional article about a non-notable company. Paid press releases do not meet WP:NCORP. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the sources I listed here.KartikeyaS (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the nominator as a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 11:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The criteria for establishing notability is for multiple references (i.e. at least two) that can be classified assignificant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Research reports covering the company have long been establishing as meeting the criteria, therefore if two (or more) research reports are referenced, the topic meets the criteria for establishing notability.
  • Research report by Orbis Research covers Luma in depth
  • Business Insider Intelligence research report also provides enough coverage on Luma

Clearly, this topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. While I agree that most (all?) of the other references are crap and fail the criteria, that only means they cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be used to support cited facts. If any of the Delete !voters don't accept the above research reports for the purposes of establishing notability, I would be very interested to hear the reasons. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I'm unable to afford those reports; they're $3900 and $679. Not sure how much of those is actually about the subject. The summaries say "key players covered in this study" and "companies mentioned in this report". I suppose we could say sources exist, but I don't think they have been used. This AfD is bizarre: I'm baffled by "I still believe the WSJ might have something useful". Hand on a second; that's by the editor who inserted the claim! How are we writing an article based on sources nobody here has access to? Vexations (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, the standard required for sources to establish notability is a lot stricter than the standard for using sources to support facts/citations within an article. For example, an interview with the CEO might be used as a source to establish how many employees a company has or where their head office is located, which is perfectly fine, but that same source likely fails the criteria for establishing notability and cannot be counted for that purpose. In relation to analyst reports particularly, they are acceptable as sources that establish notability. By their very nature, they provide descriptions of each company. Even a brief description in an analyst report is usually better than 99% of the descriptions you find in other media (in my opinion). I understand that many of these reports cost $ but that isn't a reason to discount their existence. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I agree, but now we have the bizarre situation that the subject is notable because reports exist that no one has read, but the article is written from sources that shouldn't have been used in the first place. Common sense, then would be to say, sure, you can write an article, but wait until you can access the good sources. Is there some emergency that requires that we immediately publish an article about this subject despite the lack of access to good sources? Vexations (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, yes, it is entirely possible for a notable topic to end up with a terrible article but AfD is not cleanup. You can tag an article for cleanup, etc, but deletion shouldn't be used for these cases. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, well, then, it should be a Keep. I don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The subject is notable because it has been covered in at least two analyst's reports. Vexations (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, yes, that's the conclusion I came to also. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, I may find a source difficult to access, and that does not affect the notability of the subject. However, I would expect that an editor who adds the source has read it in full. That's the basis of my good faith assumption that what a source actually says is summarized correctly by the editor who added it. But if I find out that the editor hasn't read the source, how am I going to know that that editor didn't just make something up? That is now almost certainly the case. Vexations (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note and this is why I used it to cite only a single sentence which can be verified by looking at the title of the WSJ post. It would really help if anyone with the access to WSJ can comment here. --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete purely promotion and there is nothing significant outside routine coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article from the MedCity News can be used as a reliable source. Please, check this[3] at WP:RSN. Any native advertising post has "sponsored" or "branded" written somewhere in it. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have fixed the article and asked at WP:RSN for the remaining 2 unreliable sources[4]. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Disagree. The RSN commenter is wrong on at least one point. The FCC doesn't regulate websites. I could nitpick his argument for a few other reasons (native advertising rules are not widely enforced against small-time operations), but will suffice to say they would have to do better than MedCityNews to convince me of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, neither of the two sources are reliable for the reasons I stated in WP:RSN. Mainly, both appear to be personal blogs by people who aren't regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. As they are just random bloggers. The first source seems to be heavily based on a company press release anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The WSJ article is five paragraphs long, for what it's worth. Users without a subscription aren't missing much. Dorama285 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shadow closer I like to intern my skill of interpreting discussion consensus, and for this discussion I interpret it as delete. And I leave it to the admins for action xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:41, 21 March 2020 (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.