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 . ✗plicit 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DxO Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

UPE is an issue, but the larger one is I cannot find evidence they meet N:CORP. Lots of social media and forum noise, but nothing in depth. French article is of no help as the sourcing isn't there either. Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and France. Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NCORP repeatedly refers to "organizations or products". There is ample evidence in the existing footnotes to the article that DxO's products are widely reviewed by reputable sources; there are many more reviews that are not currently cited. The natural place to group the DxO products is in the DxO Labs article; it would be silly to have a separate article for each of DxO PhotoLab, DxO FilmPack, etc., all of which are individually notable. I agree that the company has almost no independent coverage, but that's not surprising -- it's a private company. --Macrakis (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They filed for bankruptcy in 2018 [1], [2] and their gadgets have reviews about them [3], seems ok. Forbes is a senior contributor, which I'm not sure if it means they're on staff or not. Regardless, there are plenty of articles about the company and the stuff they made. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable producer of photo editing software that is well regarded and widely reviewed in reputable and notable publications. Klausness (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all pro comments above. Acabashi (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2023 (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.