- 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 in favor of improving the existing draft. ansh 666 04:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lookout (company) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Profound lack of substantive reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Self-describing involved editors have been creating a draft which looks less like advertisement and is arguably anchored with better sourcing. Based on a cursory reading it is better, IMHO. BusterD ( talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Draftifyit is better, and some of it is appropriate by our current WP:NCORP standard. A promotional article, like a company web page, contains what the company would like to say; a proper NPOV encyclopedia article contains what a general reader might want to know. That's the basic distinction that makes coi writing incompatible with WP. There's room for both in the world: they serve different purposes. What's of general interest is the security vulnerabilities the system discoveewd; the details of its funding and the executives can be of course of interest also--but of interest only to those associated with the company, unless the company is famous enough that other peopel would be interested also. It should go back to draft space for further work. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, only coverage over 5 years ago and not sustained. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete There just doesn't seem to be enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability available to justify an article and therefore I don't see merit in putting it back into draft space for further work. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- My name is Melissa and I work at Lookout (Heather is on vacation atm). @
PeterTheFourth: and @
HighKing: I wanted to make sure you saw
the draft that was proposed on Talk, which has many more quality citations than those in the current article. For example, there are articles in The New York Times
[1], Forbes
[2], CNET
[3] and TechCrunch
[4]
[5] which are pretty substantial news pieces on Lookout. Thanks for contributing to the AfD discussion. Best regards.
4.14.104.102 (
talk)
00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Response Hi Melissa. The The NYT reference fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not "intellectually independent". It relies on information provided by the company or one of their investors. It is primarily an interview with John Hering, the CEO and with the CEO of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm that invested $5.5m. It is standard churnalism, complete with obligatory serious-looking photos of the founders doing techy things. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. THe Forbes] reference most likely fails WP:RS since it comes from the "sites" part of Forbes and is therefore considered as a blog. Even leaving that aside, most Forbes articles are churnalism and it would save a lot of time if we at AfD just accept that Forbes publications fail the criteria for establishing notability. This article is also not intellectually independent since it also relies on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The CNET reference fails for largely the same reasons as the others. Churnalism, not intellectually independent, relies on interview with the CEO, etc. Finally, arguable Techcrunch is a worse publication that Forbes (for the purposes of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability). Both TechCrunch references are based on company announcements or interviews or profile-raising announcements, etc. Neither of those articles are intellectually independent for much the same reasons as the others, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of Forbes is usable as a RS (tho not the item used as a reference here) , I wouldn't advise eliminating it from possible use. The NYT item is concerning: it is partly based on a press release, but not entirely so. We have in the past always accepted the NYT as reliable, except sometimes for hyperlocal material, and for material in the earlier suburban localized editions, though I too have noticed an increase in their use of material like this.
DGG (
talk )
13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. The NYT used to be impeachable. I guess this format is cheaper to produce (might even *generate revenue*) and we can expect to see a lot more in the future. HighKing ++ 14:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of Forbes is usable as a RS (tho not the item used as a reference here) , I wouldn't advise eliminating it from possible use. The NYT item is concerning: it is partly based on a press release, but not entirely so. We have in the past always accepted the NYT as reliable, except sometimes for hyperlocal material, and for material in the earlier suburban localized editions, though I too have noticed an increase in their use of material like this.
DGG (
talk )
13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 in favor of improving the existing draft. ansh 666 04:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lookout (company) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Profound lack of substantive reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Self-describing involved editors have been creating a draft which looks less like advertisement and is arguably anchored with better sourcing. Based on a cursory reading it is better, IMHO. BusterD ( talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Draftifyit is better, and some of it is appropriate by our current WP:NCORP standard. A promotional article, like a company web page, contains what the company would like to say; a proper NPOV encyclopedia article contains what a general reader might want to know. That's the basic distinction that makes coi writing incompatible with WP. There's room for both in the world: they serve different purposes. What's of general interest is the security vulnerabilities the system discoveewd; the details of its funding and the executives can be of course of interest also--but of interest only to those associated with the company, unless the company is famous enough that other peopel would be interested also. It should go back to draft space for further work. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, only coverage over 5 years ago and not sustained. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete There just doesn't seem to be enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability available to justify an article and therefore I don't see merit in putting it back into draft space for further work. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- My name is Melissa and I work at Lookout (Heather is on vacation atm). @
PeterTheFourth: and @
HighKing: I wanted to make sure you saw
the draft that was proposed on Talk, which has many more quality citations than those in the current article. For example, there are articles in The New York Times
[1], Forbes
[2], CNET
[3] and TechCrunch
[4]
[5] which are pretty substantial news pieces on Lookout. Thanks for contributing to the AfD discussion. Best regards.
4.14.104.102 (
talk)
00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Response Hi Melissa. The The NYT reference fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not "intellectually independent". It relies on information provided by the company or one of their investors. It is primarily an interview with John Hering, the CEO and with the CEO of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm that invested $5.5m. It is standard churnalism, complete with obligatory serious-looking photos of the founders doing techy things. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. THe Forbes] reference most likely fails WP:RS since it comes from the "sites" part of Forbes and is therefore considered as a blog. Even leaving that aside, most Forbes articles are churnalism and it would save a lot of time if we at AfD just accept that Forbes publications fail the criteria for establishing notability. This article is also not intellectually independent since it also relies on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The CNET reference fails for largely the same reasons as the others. Churnalism, not intellectually independent, relies on interview with the CEO, etc. Finally, arguable Techcrunch is a worse publication that Forbes (for the purposes of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability). Both TechCrunch references are based on company announcements or interviews or profile-raising announcements, etc. Neither of those articles are intellectually independent for much the same reasons as the others, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of Forbes is usable as a RS (tho not the item used as a reference here) , I wouldn't advise eliminating it from possible use. The NYT item is concerning: it is partly based on a press release, but not entirely so. We have in the past always accepted the NYT as reliable, except sometimes for hyperlocal material, and for material in the earlier suburban localized editions, though I too have noticed an increase in their use of material like this.
DGG (
talk )
13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. The NYT used to be impeachable. I guess this format is cheaper to produce (might even *generate revenue*) and we can expect to see a lot more in the future. HighKing ++ 14:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some of Forbes is usable as a RS (tho not the item used as a reference here) , I wouldn't advise eliminating it from possible use. The NYT item is concerning: it is partly based on a press release, but not entirely so. We have in the past always accepted the NYT as reliable, except sometimes for hyperlocal material, and for material in the earlier suburban localized editions, though I too have noticed an increase in their use of material like this.
DGG (
talk )
13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.