Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe Lightroom CC

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Lightroom CC

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

An unsanctioned content fork of Adobe Lightroom Classic CC that suffers from lack of notability. (The latter formerly held the "Adobe Lightroom" title but was moved as part of the forking.) It is a mistake to create a new article as soon as a developer releases a slightly different edition of the same thing, especially when there isn't sufficient contents to justify it. This certain edition has no independent notability of its own and inherits its notability from the "Adobe Lightroom" topic. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adobe has 2 separate products:

1. "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC"

Version 7.0.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_Classic_CC

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom-classic.html

2. "Adobe Lightroom CC"

Version 1.0.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_CC

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

The comment above says:

It is a mistake to create a new article as soon as a developer releases a slightly different edition of the same thing, especially when there isn't sufficient contents to justify it.

However this is NOT what has happened. "Adobe Lightroom CC" is NOT a "slightly different edition of the same thing". It is a completely different product to the older "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC".

I would suggest that having 2 pages for the 2 products is the correct way to go, and that the page for the new product "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom_Classic_CC" needs to be expanded.

I have already set the version number, and others should start adding details to the new page.

Geoff Rimmer Gepree (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for three reasons:

First, notability is not inherited, not even by likeness of the name. If they are to be treated as two completely different products, independent notability is required. This is actually very important, because co-branding is a well-known tactic for an unknown product to piggyback the success of a well-known product.
Second, similarity of both name and function of the app is the criteria for the subjects being covered in the same article; hence the split was a mistake. We had such discussions about .NET Core too, which ended up in .NET Framework article. (Both are totally notable.) We had it about Windows 8.1 too, which remained part of Windows 8 article until we had material to justify a new article. (Both are totally notable.) Sometimes, we've had no discussions but the community made the right decision: e.g. Windows Server 2012 R2 is part of the Windows Server 2012 article. (Both are totally notable.)
Third, we do not have enough contents. When an article bristles with contents, a split is justified independent of the notability status. This is not the case here.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for the 2 pages to be merged into a single page, as long as that page contains the following details for the 2 applications:

- the old application:

Name: "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC"

Version 7.0.1

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom-classic.html

- and the new application:

Name: "Adobe Lightroom CC"

Version: 1.0.1

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

Gepree (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

There is no problem with this request. It can be done. We have already done it in Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Flash Player, Skype, OneDrive and many other articles.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Codename Lisa and FleetCommand. New product is not notable enough yet for its own article and can be covered by existing article (maybe this one should be moved to "Adobe Lightroom" or "Adobe Lightroom CC" as its current name "Adobe Lightroom Classic CC" is too specific). Pavlor (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Despite of the name, Lightroom CC is unfortunately by no means neither an update of Lightroom CC 7 (now "Classic") nor a fork, but a completely different re-architectured software (of the same purpose) Adobe calls it on its web-page "all-new" Lightroom CC and a "photo service" - while LR CC Classic still is referred to as an "app". It is not even compatible with Lightroom CC Classic and has less features than LR CC Classic. Also it features a cloud-based database, and not a local folder-based and catalogue-managed image storage. The similarities of Lightroom CC and Lightroom CC Classic is very much like the similarity between Apple Photos and Apple Aperture.

Christiano01, 30th November 2017

Media coverage of the new version I found so far is centered around (and based on) the Adobe announcement (Adobe MAX conference): cnet.com [1], theverge.com [2], techrepublic.com [3] etc. Once there are solid reviews of this new product, stand-alone article will be justified, I think. Pavlor (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have enough material. WP:SIZERULE. I am surprised why the nominator came here to undo the split. As far as I can read from the policy, she could have acted boldly and remerged. Maybe I do.

There is something else that bothers me too: This Christiano01 account was made yesterday, and seemingly knew about this discussion beforehand. Make no mistake, we welcome new editors. But we are on the watchout to see if they are truly editors or just a one-time meat puppet.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There is not enough RS yet to support new article, which is not even needed as all content can be kept within the older article. Need for possible separate article can be discussed later, when more RS arrive. You are right it makes sense to have both products (which are similar in purpose and name) in one article. As of suspected "meat puppet" issue, both keep (or sort of keep) "votes" have different reasoning: one looks like company position, the other like disgruntled user not happy with the new Adobe product policy (sure, looks like SPA, but even plain IP comments have weight, if these are policy based...). Pavlor (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FleetCommand, in a way, I'm a one-time-editor, that's true. But I'm not a meat-puppet. I have only one account. I swear. Originally I created my account a few weeks ago or so to only update an outdated and slightly misleading Nikon-article. Then I found my environment getting confused with all these Lightrooms, and decided to help clarifying ... . Here is a review on PCmag. Christiano01, 1st December 2017

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad you came here and cleared that out. But still, there seems to be a consensus in the favor of merger here, due to lack of material. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Through if we can find more reviews like the PC Mag above, maybe it would be notable. Could also be userfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per same topic (not same software). The main article having it as a former name. Widefox; talk 18:49, 11 December 2017 (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.