Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumen (tech company)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen (tech company)

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to funding announcements. Search is complicated by the existence of notable Lumen Technologies, but I couldn't find anything about this company besides the aforementioned announcements, and a couple short inclusions in lists of startups that don't add up to significant coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Technology, and Israel. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look around some more before making up my mind. Coverage seems focused on the technology, less on the funding. We want everything covered. Not all coverage found is independent. This piece is a SIGCOV, independent ANALYSIS of the technology in Forbes, discussing at length the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. It counts toward notability. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be recently covered by reliable sources, such as Forbes [1] and TheVerge [2] . Marokwitz (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, Marokwitz, for finding a second valid source! gidonb (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Forbes article is by a contributor and cannot be used. The Verge article along with 3 present, make it a marginally keep for me.Bikerose (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ambivalent. I am highly concerned that the two sources held up as the best SIGCOV are examples of affiliate marketing. There are a few other reviews more or less along the same lines, for example, Kraus (Mashable, 2020) and Giordano (Wired, 2020) both presumably for the earlier iteration of the product, and Dervish-O'Kane (Women’s Health, 2024), but non-affiliate sources seem rather thin on the ground, and while appropriately disclosed for the typical journalistic source, that does not mean the coverage can be considered independent by our standards. Byrne, writing for Outside magazine in 2022 appears to be one qualifying source, but with the rest of the coverage being... not really acceptable, I cannot currently endorse a keep at the present time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep affiliate links or no, there is a significant amount of independent coverage here. Affiliate links are just how you make money as an online news brand today. The Mashable source linked above does, for example, criticise the product:

> the daily breathing in the morning, and at additional times depending on other information the app asks for, is a bit of a slog, and I’m not sure the information Lumen gives me is something I can’t pretty much intuit for myself. BrigadierG (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment - As already identified, the Forbes source runs afoul of WP:FORBESCON, but I think we can keep based on Wired, Mashable, and Women's Health. Regarding the affiliate linking topic, I don't think consensus has been established at RSN or elsewhere that this is disqualifying. (Personal opinion, not policy: I think the presence of affiliate links is correlated with but not causative of non-independent reviews; affiliate links being so ubiquitous today, we should defer to our other indications on whether sources are editorially independent and reliable, and I think the ones under discussion generally are (Wired is on RSP unconditionally, and Mashable is on RSP with the caveat "especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves", which is not the issue under discussion here).) As other non-keep !votes have been submitted, we'll have to let this run to completion though. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412: Found a Slate article (Camero, 2023) so I'm OK to withdraw any objection on initial examination. Any misgivings on the DUE afforded to sources I can hash out on the talk page. The page should probably be mostly be about the product (and renamed accordingly) since the relevant coverage is mostly reviews but, again, talk page. I believe I'm the only one who expressed any concerns, so we should be all good for early close, though it's not like there's a deadline if nobody wants to actually do the close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 2 April 2024 (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.