Deletion of Lightricks

Comment: as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the  policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVERTISING)

Comment: Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on company announcements and quotations, or has independent analysis or opinion)? If you can, I'll |change my !vote - because when I looked, I couldn't find one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: The article is written as .  Even though there are sufficient references the overall content of the article is written as an advertisement and most of the links are for self promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: as per {{u|Icewhiz}} analysis of references. Also, references that rely or are based on company announcements fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails  and/or . References that are company announcements made by partners equally fail. There are no intellectually independent references available - these are references that are published in |reliable sources (which most are) but which also provide independent opinion or analysis of the company (none appear to exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:RS)

Comment: None of those references are intellectually independent. It is not enough to have a reference from a "reliable source" and meets the criteria for , the reference must also be intellectually independent - that means, not regurgitates corporate press release, no articles relying solely on interviews and/or quotations from connected personnel (fails  and should have independent analysis and/or opinion. What's the opposite of ? Perhaps some of the Keep !voters here should take a fresh look at find 2 references
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ORGIND||WP:HEY)