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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artlist[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Artlist (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)

The coverage is either routine, such as funding news, etc., or it is in unreliable sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - has plenty of sources, many more available. Way more coverage available than a "trivial mention" as in WP:CORPDEPTH. Company is still a healthy active corporation and is generating new products in the media field. Checking the stats, the page gets 150 views a day so, it is certainly notable. Could use an update and some exposition on the products but the page is protected and with all the issues, I am sure it would get flagged as advertorial.
Blarneyfife7 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Blarneyfife7: has only made 3 edits if you include this vote. The other two were a minor grammar correction on a page and beginning a blank user sandbox. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: most of the sources are repeated multiple times, and many of the sources do not include authors which makes it difficult to establish independence for WP:Reliable sources
Editchecker123 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The sources here are OK, others could be added including https://fxhome.com/news/artlist-acquires-fxhome but there are no end of online sources. There are currently sources that meet criteria of WP:SIRS but this could be improved further. Artlist is a highly regarded company in the creative space, with millions of users and growing products, so the need for representation on Wikipedia will only increase over time. KirstieT (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) — KirstieT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you please link 2 or preferably 3 sources that meet WP:SIRS. I believe I looked at all 30 in the article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them. I've no criticism or doubt of the company itself. However, especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2 —siroχo 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allow me to take the challenge and add some more sources that in my opinion meet the WP:SIRS criteria: https://medium.com/authority-magazine/making-something-from-nothing-ira-belsky-of-artlist-on-how-to-go-from-idea-to-launch-3b52d675260d, https://www.creativeboom.com/resources/the-best-stock-music-sites-for-creatives-in-2022/, https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-06-29/kkr-leads-48m-round-into-stock-digital-content-platform-artlist. I would also like to add independent reviews videos I found (these seem to be real users with no attachment to the company whatsoever - judging by the fact there are no affiliate links or sponsorships which make them to the best of my knowledge reliable and pristine sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU_hOgf93zQ, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZV4BrnjCss SaraPMP (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bold There are literally 1000's of independent reviews by content professionals available online. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22artlist%22+review&sp=CAM%253D .. Can wikilawyer all you want, you cannot deny that. 135.148.233.69 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Appreciate the work sourcing. Unfortunately none of these meet the requirements for WP:SIRS
    • Authority Magazine source is fully an interview (not independent). Authority Magazine also does not seem to be independent per se (intentionally so) per their about page [1]
    • Creative Boom link is not in-depth coverage of the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH)
    • Bloomberg is a press release (not independent)
    • For the purposes of corporate notability, product reviews must be published in reliable sources that provide editorial oversight. WP:PRODUCTREV. The reviews you link may be useful to cite for attributed opinions on a product, but we cannot use them to establish notability.
    If you are in the mood for more reading, perhaps the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase would be enlightening as to the NPOV issues and such. —siroχo 19:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate people who jump on bandwagon of vandals.. Since you are an established wiki lawyer we can presume you know that references only need to be out there and not in the article. There are hundreds of reviews by editorially qualified sources .. Go find them.. unless out of the 300,000 or so on the web, you are presuming they arent there? Curios what the value proposition for you faked ignorance is? 135.148.233.37 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, i am not the one who suggested those and there are no paid placements or press releases in the article. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://sites.google.com/site/videoblocksreview/best-royalty-free-music-wesites/artlist-review
    https://www.musicgateway.com/blog/music-licensing/artlist-io-music-review
    https://thetechreviewer.com/artlist-review/
    https://www.trustradius.com/products/artlist/reviews#product-details
    https://www.freelancevideocollective.com/reviews/artlist/
    https://www.cined.com/artlist-ai-powered-stock-footage-search-launched/
    When I google artlist review, these are all in the top 10.. Seems hard to believe you couldnt find them or the other 1000's that exist. 135.148.233.37 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, siroχo for sharing some more reading. I found the essay very interesting indeed.
    I imagine that at this point it doesn't really matter what each of us bring to the table as independent sources, we are bound to disagree ad aeternum.
    However, I did start looking into other sources according to your perspective and conducted a different exercise: I took a Wikipedia article of a company with a very similar profile of this one (I am obviously not going to mention who they are as I gain nothing with putting them into trouble as well) and scrutinized the sources they use as reference. Take a look below:
    • A Financial Times article where they are mentioned very briefly (not in-depth coverage of the company - your opinion cited here)
    •A Bloomberg article ("Bloomberg is a press release (not independent)" - your opinion cited here)
    •A Techcrunch article (also used as a reference in the Artlist article ("I believe I looked at all 30 in the [Artlist] article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them." - your opinion cited here)
    •A Reuters article (also used as a reference in the Artlist article ("I believe I looked at all 30 in the [Artlist] article and couldn't find a single one, but I may have missed them." - your opinion cited here)
    • A Sifted.eu article, which at this point I am pretty sure it's not an independent source at all
    • We are left with a couple of local newspaper articles in a foreign language, which judging by the WP:ORGCRIT are not enough to justify the existence of the article in the Wikipedia sphere. You also agreed to it when you wrote earlier "especially with companies, without such sources it's hard to uphold pillars 1 and 2"
    In conclusion, this article from a very similar company with very similar sources has never been marked for deletion. Same niche, same sources, different criteria. I just put this out there for what is worth.
    My humble take on all this: since there are no doubts or criticisms about the company itself, since it has a large number of users and a growing number of products, since it has a significant number of pageviews, why not to let it live in the Wiki sphere and WP:STUBIFY it? I think this could be the most logical approach here. SaraPMP (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So first off, thanks again for your engagement in this discussion and apologies for the sheer amount of information that gets thrown at you in discussion like this. As you can see, such discussions rely heavily on policies and guidelines that people learn over time. It's very much getting thrown in the deep end. I really do appreciate your contributions.
    Know that these policies and guidelines derive almost exclusively from the consensus of Wikipedians and have developed over time to serve the task of building an encyclopedia.
    So, to address your message, the criteria for assessing sources are the same, and are meant to be applied the same way. Sources are usually assessed case-by-case. For example, the Bloomberg article you linked above is a press release, here's the original. I'm not sure about the Bloomberg article in the other article you examined, maybe it's an independent reliable secondary source with significant in-depth coverage directly of the company, maybe it's not (Bloomberg is generally considered reliable so we at least don't really have to worry about that bit). Maybe that other article should be deleted but nobody's raised it yet, or maybe not. Ultimately, the consensus of Wikipedians at this point in time is that we decide whether to include articles about corporations based on such sources.
    —siroχo 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - There are actually thousands of independent reviews on the company done by professional content creators 11:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.152.55 (talk)
KEEP - Sources seem reliable to me, however if the WP:SIRS criteria are thought to be shaky, then it can be a good idea to WP:STUBIFY the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE13:8400:725A:CF6B:567F:2D3A (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring the comments by accounts with 1 edit (to this AFD), I'm seeing "Weak Delete" or "Leaning Delete" and given the pushback from SPAs, I'd like to see a stronger consensus before closing this discussion. Of course, another closer might view things differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the pushback. Do what feels right. :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An admin, doing "what feels right", without the backing of editor consensus, can get you called to WP:Deletion review for a cavity inspection. Very unpleasant. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 18 July 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.
More