Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LumoPro

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. ✗plicit 05:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LumoPro

[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)

Subject appears to fail WP: COMPANY notability guidelines especially with respect to adequate sources. Notability template as been on the header for nearly 5 years. Headphase (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Graham, Jefferson (2014-03-02). "LumoPro 180 flash review: Lots of power at half the cost". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The latest model, the $200 LumoPro LP180, was released recently, and it's a real winner. I bought a model as a backup to have in case my big Canon wasn't working, but I've ended up using the LumoPro more often. It has as much power, recycles in the same amount of time, and is more versatile. The LumoPro has one huge difference from Canon and Nikon flashes. It is manual. You can't just throw the flash on top of the camera and click the shutter. You have to think about what you're doing."
2. Sorrel, Charlie (2009-03-19). "First Look: Strobist 'Open Source' Flashgun". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "What makes the [LumoPro] LP120 different from most other products is that it is a community driven project, designed for the consumer. Getting hold of a cheap flash with manual controls is almost impossible — you either need to go for a $500+ model and ignore the bells and whistles, or trawl the second hand stores for older guns (good luck — demand is driving up the prices)."
3. Sorrel, Charlie (2010-06-02). "Quad-Sync LumoPro Strobist Flash Pops Four Ways". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The LumoPro LP160 might be the ultimate Strobist flash. Cheap, powerful and able to talk to pretty much any camera, it offers a great alternative to the $500 top-end flashes from Nikon and Canon for those who want a big light without paying for all the fancy automatic functions."
4. Sorrel, Charlie (2010-07-04). "Hands-On With the Quad-Sync LumoPro Flash". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "Build quality is ok. The plastic is lightweight but flexible, so although it isn't as solid as a Nikon speedlight, it shouldn't shatter on impact. Would I buy one? Sure. At $160, it is in range of most photographers, and it works as it should. There are no frills, but a lot of thought has gone into what features have been added. And at the price, you can buy a clutch of LumoPros for the price of one Nikon SB900."
5. Bracaglia, Dan (2013-07-08). "New Gear: Lumopro LP-180 Quad-Sync Flash. Lumopro's third generation flash unit offers a whole lot of bang for your buck". Popular Photography. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "Other major improvements include a new user interface. The LP-180 is the first Lumopro to offer an LCD on the back, which we found to be extremely intuitive to use. The screen is also a very generous size in comparison to other name-brand flashes."
6. "Non-proprietary speedlights". Digital Photographer. No. 164. Imagine Publishing. 2015. p. 39. Retrieved 2021-12-31 – via Internet Archive.
  The article contains a few sentences of coverage. The article notes: "Two of the most popular and respected third-party speedlights available are the LumoPro LP180 Quad-Sync Manual Flash (www.lumopro.com), seen here below to the right, ... The LP180 retails in the US for $200 and the distributor in Europe is CameraTools (www.cameratools.nl), who have it listed for €299."
7. Hillen, Brittany (2015-07-29). "LumoPro LP742 LightSwitch Speedlight Case doubles as light modifier". Digital Photography Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LumoPro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- As Cunard well knows, the appropriate WP:SNG for a company/organnization is WP:NCORP and not GNG. HighKing⁺⁺15:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there are certainly plenty of mere Google results out there for Lumopro's products, they are just that- either simple product listings (NOTSTATS/NOTCATALOG), advertisements, or sponsored/supplied review content (COISOURCE); these are not reliable secondary sources imv. Plus, all seven of the listed citations are aimed at individual products, not the company itself. While it's fine for product information to exist within a company article, the company does not inherit notability from its products, events, or people. This article contains all of one sentence about the focus and structure of Lumopro itself. - Headphase (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Wikipedia article and the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided are about the LumoPro brand, not the LumoPro company. I can find no evidence that the USA Today, Wired, or Popular Photography are WP:COISOURCEs. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now this is an advertisement. If could improve this article with reducing promotional tone and adding reliable references, the subject might be notable and i can change my vote to keep. DMySon (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and most of Cunard's references are product mentions/reviews. Since the topic is the company and not any particular individual product, the product reviews do not assist in establishing notability of the company. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺15:26, 8 January 2022 (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.