Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoSpring

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoSpring[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:PAID; article is based on self-published, cruft, primary sources, with no WP:DEPTH and insufficient coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources. AKA per nom. ——SerialNumber54129 07:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Accepted at WP:AFC based on cited reliable sources: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are basically press releases. I was surprised that you had accepted this article at AfC without the substantial independent, reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability. The creator may deny having a CoI, but the only thing he has done in his total of eight contributions to Wikipedia since he joined in July is to write this article and to introduce and link the company name into the article on Digital photo frames. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These all have bylines by independent writers and so are not clearly press releases. SPA or suspected COI is not a reason to delete or reject an AFC submission. The article is very stubby and so has no WP:NPOV issue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NCORP, any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the press release(s) these articles are based on or are you making these assertions based on smell? ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a substitute for a corporate website. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The onles listed by Kvng above fail since the eweek reference is a review of the product written exactly like an advertisement and contains no information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH, the fastcompany reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the ZDNet reference appears to also be a review of the product and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps the product is notable and the article can be renamed/reworked in that direction, but the company on notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should always consider alternatives to deletion if we believe the product is notable, we should keep the article and let it be reworked. This is preferable to having to start over from scratch, is it not? ~Kvng (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the product though, it is about the company which fails the criteria for notability. If someone wants to create a new article based on the product they are free to do so but I don't see much in this article that could be considered a "reworking". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it could be WP:MOVEed and reworked to focus on the product and, if we want an article about the product, that's a preferred path compared to deleting this and starting again from scratch. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither the company nor the product is sufficiently notable for the encyclopedia. Sourcing is in passing; WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2018 (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.