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.
I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [1] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [2][3] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix₵14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.
both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.
Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.
I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 2024 (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.