Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtFacts.Net

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. Sandstein 14:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArtFacts.Net

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

Self-promotion. Notability is not given as the Alexa rank is just around 220,000. The main content of the website can only be accessed via a paywall. The business model is not mentioned. They claim to to do an artist ranking but in order to get a better ranking artists are encouraged to buy a membership (http://www.artfacts.net/purchase/artist) to "actively promote their career". Bouba20k (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of Bouba20k is not inexplicable. On Wikipedia are similar company entries such as for artnet working in the same field with same relevance as ArtFacts.Net. Furthermore in english wiki many artist entries are linked to Artfacts.net which is self-evidently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerie 10243 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Germany-related deletion discussion Marek Claassen founder of Artfacts identified himself as being the author of these articles Galerie 10243. Comparing himself with artnet, a company with a much higher Alexa Rank shows the authors exaggerated opinion on himself. After knowing that he himself wrote the article it's imaginable that the links on the artist pages were also created by the company themself --Bouba20k (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably keep, but with a sharp eye: WP:COI may be of concern here and at the related article, and lest they be tended as press releases, there are reliable sources that may be added such as [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:41E8:3E22:766:8808 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See Yogev, Tamar; Grund, Thomas (2012). "Network Dynamics and Market Structure: The Case of Art Fairs". Sociological Focus. 45 (1): 30. doi:10.1080/00380237.2012.630846. The availability of these rankings and the richness of the data make Artfacts.Net the largest and most reliable data source currently available. That certainly shows the website's notability. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It seems to have enough industry-specific information that it may be notable as a reference in the art world, I see no reason to delete at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources or references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. The source posted above by the anon IPV6 address is to a blog post. Blog posts are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The source posted above by User:CorrectHorseBatteryStaple appears to be a research paper. I have no idea if the authors are experts in their fields or reliable. The quote provided appears to be a mention in passing and a little tangential to the topic being researched. It is not an in-depth look at the company. As such, it does not establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, seems notable enough in its own field. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping. Notability is marginal at best; sources do not meet WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for unremarkable businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 17 May 2017 (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.