Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artlist

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

[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]
  • Delete. Quick evaluation of the sources suggests they do not meet WP:SIRS. It's all routine coverage of funding, acquisitions, products on list entries, etc. The most in-depth coverage seemed to be a few quick mentions as competition for another company in LA Times. —siroχo 08:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Not sure if my opinion counts but, here are a couple of other sources which could be added.. https://www.archdaily.com/979398/artlist-office-switchup (architectural coverage)
    https://www.duns100.co.il/en/Artlist (D&B best companies)
    https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2020/12/17/israeli-startup-artlist-buys-american-startup-motion-array-for-65-million/
    This is an Israeli company so there are a number of references in Hebrew/Israeli press as well. There seem to enough independent sources and product reviews to meet wp:nexist on the web since they provide licensed media content. 2A01:B747:131:344:28B0:D147:E5AD:F6E0 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Companies/organizations have special requirements (see WP:ORGCRIT for lots of explanation). —siroχo 02:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the company is notable, with plenty of relevant sources online, written pretty much in line with other similar companies that also have an article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraPMP (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) — SaraPMP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • Comment. One thing you can say about Artlist is it certainly knows how to get its message out. It's not easy to see the wood through the trees. Worried by the contribution history of the article. Agree with User:Siroxo's evaluation of the sources. Also note this page has had to have a level of protection applied. There's a couple of mentions in books but nothing indepth. Spent some time considering this and can't readily come to a formal !vote, however weighing everything up, leaning delete. Rupples (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment
    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/
    The first one is a review site owned by google.. that isnt credible? How about the 5 mentions in 6 paragraphs in the LA Times Article, WiredUK, there are plenty of trades though you would need to sort through the paid ones, and all the professional reviews on youtube you would have to sort through. References dont need to be in the article, they just need to available. Also, notability doesnt fade and this article was already deemed notable. It wasnt moved into the main space by one of the paid editors, it went through AFC like it should have. All the paid editing on this page was disclosed properly.
    Some of these people who just siphon at people's work to make them start over hoping they will go back to Upwork is literally nothing but thieving.. Might as well be shoplifters but worse! There is no denial on the notability. I am going to keep these comments posted in the forum on reddit because I want people to be held responsible for their lies. There is no way anyone with any time spent editing wikipedia that would challenge this page unless there was some additional value proposition. Anyone who says any different is lying. Sorry if i ranted but it is true. 135.148.232.242 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm getting pretty lost in all the unrelated posting above. Leaning delete, none of the sources I've clicked on in this thread seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. What are the two or three best sources? Suriname0 (talk) 21:58, 13 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]
  • Delete This 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 10:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep not sure why no one is doing any book research.. If you select custom range since 2010, you will find nearly 20 books that cite artist as the place to go if you are in media for stock video footage. 2A01:B747:156:344:E4D0:E7C3:13BC:EF36 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those books show signficant coverage? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentHow about this one which has a bolded section on P. 232 on Artist which then goes on through p.234.
    This printed paperback seems to have visual walkthrough on how to sign up inside.
    This book on instagram has section titled Artlist 2A01:B747:156:344:B9E1:C3F8:1BB3:15C9 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd typically consider "how to use this product" to fall under of product instruction manuals, not sure how much analysis is in there, but I'm open to hearing an argument otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to discuss how a printed paperback on general film editing having an entire section on how to sign up for this company's service would be considered product instruction manuals? ALso, I notice you picked the weakest of the three references to point out. Do you not want to address the 3 pages in the filmmaking book or the other Artlist section on the book for making instagram content.. 64.183.24.146 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing to keep in mind is that this is an article about a company. The SIRS sources need to provide in-depth coverage of the company. Many 3rd party "how to" type don't have such coverage, though some do. Of the sources the IP user above linked, the first one would look promising for product coverage, but doesn't seem to have company coverage, but it's not my native language nor can I see all the pages.
    Perhaps identifying a product by this company and finding some sources with in-depth coverage of the product, and writing a new article is the better approach? —siroχo 00:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-songtradr-music-licensing-20170822-story.html 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://sites.google.com/site/videoblocksreview/best-royalty-free-music-wesites/artlist-review 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/business/20639363.well-paid-city-tech-jobs-created-software-firm-gears-growth/ 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and this techcrunch article is way more than trivial coverage of an acquisition.. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/29/artlist-raises-48m-led-by-kkr-for-its-royalty-free-music-video-and-sound-effect-library/ 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cites don't show the required significant coverage. A note to the sockpuppet accounts and IPs voting keep - You are wasting everyone's time (including your own) bringing trivial mentions and self published junk here. - MrOllie (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It will just be restored in deletion review or through the arbitration committee.. They can go through who's votes accurately reflect the actual notability of the company and the reasons why. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And let me say, this was properly disclosed editing which went through AFC and was moved into publication by a very credible editor.. Notability doesnt not deteriorate.. Someone just decided to attack this page.. This is an easy restore if for some reason we ignore every sign of notability and source. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and significant work and research has been done by multiple editors which deserve credit. Your issue isnt even with the creator of the article. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole PC MAG article is about the best services in different areas and 3 out of the 5 of them are their companies.. This is more than substantial as PC Mag is printed and widely available.. Also well edited and been around since the 80's.. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-subscription-services-for-content-creators Artlist, Motion Array, and Artgrid are all described in detail. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly in-depth reviews are they? Not comprehensive enough to satisfy the WP:PRODUCTREV section of WP:NCORP. This applies to all the reviews in that article, not just Artlist. Rupples (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. TWL wasn't working for me over the weekend, so I decided to wait even though I was mostly done. At this point though, I give up. Open a case request on me, I don't care. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete: This article doesn't just fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it's also written like and advert and almost all accounts contributing are either single-purpose, or are paid contributors (both banned and following the policy). It would be best to delete, even if notable, so that it can be rewritten without COI, and to avoid the article reading like an advert. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and HighKing. NB: I was going to close this as delete, but since I've edited the article, decided that it was preferable to let someone else do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All this is laughable that this article could ever be recreated without using the same references or doing exactly the same work, People disguising they are paid editors and attacking a page so they can try and grab it when it goes back to upwork or to try and get them on a monthly plan. You are thieves thinking these guys want to pay three or 4 times for an article.. You are ruining your own platform and AI will soon prove without a doubt you are all doing paid editing, if it hasnt already and the network admins are just hiding it from you. This article is in a half dozen different categories.. Cant wait.. Going to suggest it to arb and the foundation, AI be used to identify admins and editors hiding UPE. Time for honoring yourself will soon be over highness. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Changes were made and the article has added significant references.. Let me also remind you that this will be a sure thing entry into the hebrew edition and then it could easily be moved here without any issues.. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact this is an Israeli startup that has made these contributions from a country so small... also makes it inherently notable. 47.153.142.52 (talk) 04:20, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artlist&oldid=1166064483"