Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovable

[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. Sources are not independent reliable secondary sources. GTrang (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't feel like the primary topic for that title. options:

TNT

just a normal delete

... Oreocooke (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As another comment. It actually seems to me the page could be attacked by competitors of the company. Not the nominating admin, but some comments that clearly do not make sense. It is a company that it is one of the first in history to few unicorn startups and such revenue in 8 months. There are dozens of reviews and articles about it, in independent , mainstream and local sources. Article needs work, but sources are not the question, or the notability.

I have seems so many scam companies on Wikipedia, and yet nobody nominates them. I had this on my suggestion board. Just look at the company and the founder's page- Madlyn Cazalis. This is the type of scam that should be removed from wikipedia. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for informing us of these scam companies you've seen on Wikipedia. Please do not forget to list them out for review. We truly appreciate your contributions on Wikipedia, we do! But editors here are working hard to maintain the intergrity of the community and your contributions aswell are appreciated. We don't judge based on arguments like the page could be attacked by competitors of the company. We are guided by community guidlines and consensus. Please take your time to review that here. Cameremote (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has quite some media coverage, though the article might need some work. It's not a glaring promotion and I think that it has enough media coverage to warrant a keep. HurricaneZeta (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly disagree with the point made by the nominator about the independent reliable sources. The nominator clearly does not have the knowledge of the tech industry. It is just an objective observation. Lovable is one of the only companies in the world that recently grew to 100 million revenue in 8 months or so. It is all over the news around the world. A simple google search shows that it is a notable company that definitely meets WP:NCORP. There are hundreds of articles, and syndicated pieces.

Take this for example. It is an editorial piece by Bloomberg magazine. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-09/swedish-vibe-coding-startup-lovable-in-talks-for-1-5-billion-valuation WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to readers. I removed a lot of promotional text there, and added new sources, and removed company's own website used as a source. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs significant work, but it has enough media coverage to keep. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:SIRS, sources need to be completely independent of the article subject, which isn’t the case here. The other accessible sources are about valuations and estimated sales, which are routine coverage. Fails WP:ORGCRITE Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, only trivial mentions in trade sites.--This has to be edited (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this comment. There are multiple detailed editorial pieces published over the past two years at the magazines considered reliable by the Wikipedia standard. I will not go and copy here every link from the google search, you are free to use google and verify. This is definitely not a trivial mention at a trade publications. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-09/swedish-vibe-coding-startup-lovable-in-talks-for-1-5-billion-valuation WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few more sources people can find on Google, if someone want to edit the article:

Financial Times – "AI start-up Lovable receives funding offers at $4bn valuation" https://www.ft.com/content/a97dd70c-e6ba-41b1-909d-90436a41d5f2
TechCrunch – "Lovable becomes a unicorn with $200M Series A just 8 months after launch" https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/17/lovable-becomes-a-unicorn-with-200m-series-a-just-8-months-after-launch/
Forbes – "AI 'Vibe Coder' Lovable Is Sweden's Latest Unicorn" https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2025/07/17/ai-vibe-coder-lovable-is-swedens-latest-unicorn/
Sifted – "VCs value Lovable at $4bn in flurry of bids, reports say" https://sifted.eu/articles/lovable-valuation-vc-investors-4-billion-bids
Business Insider – "Fast-growing Swedish vibe coding startup Lovable is set to raise funding from Accel at a $1.5 billion valuation" https://www.businessinsider.com/accel-to-lead-funding-round-for-lovable-2025-6

WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE and WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you already that editorial article are not WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. It seems you are purposefully ignorant and try to enforce your opinion, meanwhile I try to explain to you what sources are appropriate what what are not. Apologies, if I got the wrong idea.

To point out again- an editorial piece in Bloomberg about a company making extraordinary achievements and reinventing the industry- is NOT WP:ROUTINE by any mean. That is NOT a press release, and NOT a routine coverage. I really do no have energy to comment on your al sources, but I'd like to be fair. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AI slop per WP:TNT. Appears to be have a weak notability. 46.212.44.211 (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per wp:NCORP. Plenty of good sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of articles on Google by small media, local media, mainstream media, in the US, Europe and around the world. The company is officially the fastest growing startup ever that got 100 million in ARR in less than a year. https://thenextweb.com/news/vibe-coding-platform-lovable-becomes-historys-fastest-growing-software-startup

The Wikipedia article is poorly written, I personally went and removed many of the sources the creator made. The company is notable, it is obvious by a simple google search. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WestwoodHights573, you’ve already contributed extensively to this AfD (around 70% of the discussion so far). Your points are noted, so unless specifically pinged, please refrain from further comments to avoid bludgeoning the process. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any policy-based reasoning in the keep votes. "Plenty of sources" (which ones meet WP:ORGCRIT?), "has enough media coverage" (it is about WP:CORPDEPTH, not the number of sources available), etc. The only source I see that could be considered for notability would be Bloomberg and I have never seen a company kept based on two recent sources in the same publication. Everything else is routine coverage, brief mentions, and PR-driven references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the sources on the article itself? Here are the sources added there.

In addition to Bloomberg, there is an entire editorial piece with the Financial Times. I think it is objectively wrong to say there are "2 independent sources" for this company. All the sources are openly available on Google and are not hard to find. https://www.ft.com/content/01bc8e7e-6c45-4348-b89f-00e091149531

Also, the Times, and a dozen of interviews, that could be secondary sources. https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/entrepreneurs/article/dont-know-code-build-a-serious-business-using-ai-enterprise-network-l2r2czlfv

Multiple research papers and product reviews based on the company: https://research.contrary.com/company/lovable

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-i-built-and-deployed-an-app-in-2-days-with-lovable-supabase-and-netlify/

There are dozens of article talking about the company in the media, which is all WP:CORPDEPTH. Dozens of media outlets reporting on success of the company. https://techfundingnews.com/swedens-lovable-takes-on-cursor-and-copilot-eyes-100m-at-1-5b-valuation-with-ai-that-lets-anyone-build-apps/

https://startupspells.com/p/lovable-europes-fastest-growing-ai-startup-10m-arr-2-months-growth-strategy WestwoodHights573 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Did you check the requirement of WP:ORGCRIT? Based on your mention of "interviews" I am thinking you didn't. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and there is one interview in the list I shared. Times https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/entrepreneurs/article/dont-know-code-build-a-serious-business-using-ai-enterprise-network-l2r2czlfv I am showing it as an example of general coverage, and then research papers and other media coverage reporting on the contributions and achievement of the company, that got attention in the industry. Let me know if you have any other questions. To stay factual - none of these are brief PR mentions by any means, but actual industry recognition. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did read it then it is a WP:CIR issue as never has an interview been used to establish notability on a company in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single independent professional source cited. At first I thought TechCrunch will be good, but is is also just a retelling of what Lovable says. --Altenmann >talk 23:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONING

Hi! I have a question @Altenmann, and was hoping you can clarify. I am taking just two articles, the one by Bloomberg and the one by Financial times. Both independent from the company, both both written by their journalists, editorial pieces, and not some staff contributors with paid ads. Articles discuss company in debt. According to Wikipedia rules that would be considered independent and reliable sources. Instructions are described here. Blomberg and Financial Times are independent professional sources. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As a Wikipedia editor, who made just about 150 edits or so, I'd like to know what rules people are supposed to follow.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-09/swedish-vibe-coding-startup-lovable-in-talks-for-1-5-billion-valuation

www.ft.com/content/01bc8e7e-6c45-4348-b89f-00e091149531 WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was not clear enough, i.e., I didnt explain the term "professional": I meant "professional within the business area of the company". Bloomberg and Financial Times are doing their job in covering the financial issues: each and every startup that raises reasonable $$$000 is on their radar. In Wikipedia this is considered to be "routine coverage". And no they are not independent: I dont think Bllmberg has experts in each and every trade to make independent technicsl evaluation: they merely review company reports. --Altenmann >talk 01:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but funding is not the topic of these articles, in case you read them. It is the job of Bloomberg and the Financial Times to provide independent coverage, and they also have contributors, who are not independent at all. It is also noted in many articles that this is not a routine coverage, but rather coverage of an "extraordinary" company, that not only received funding, but also reached massive revenue in a record time in the history. That is the theme, and all media are talking about these results.

I did not create this article, so I could not care less. Nonetheless, I see a range of sources in mainstream media and outside, and the quality of these sources seems clearly better than the quality of many articles created about the companies. To be honest, it seems meaningless and even bias, that such a company is nominated for deletion. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are all about securing funding, which isn't notable. I don't see coverage about the company that isn't funding. PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Most sources focus on funding rounds and valuations, which is routine coverage WP:ROUTINE. There is heavy reliance on the company's self-published material, and the article’s promotional tone further undermines encyclopedic value. I also have a concern about WP:RECENT, it feels like Wikipedia is publishing articles on very new startups before their long-term significance or impact can be verified. Lovable is extremely recent.Cameremote (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2025 (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.