Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Art.Net

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This rather promotional article (COI creator with a username we wouldn't allow today) was AfD'd and kept in the glory days of 2006, when notability standards were significantly more woolly than they are today. Under today's stricter standards, requiring in-depth coverage in secondary sources, this article cannot be kept.

I have checked "art.net", "art net", and "art on the net" on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, Questia, and Newspapers.com and found nothing. The problem is exacerbated by the generic-sounding name, which throws up chaff generated by an unrelated early-net bulletin board called ArtNet, a data protocol called Art-Net, and a popular art auction site called Artnet (as well as hits generated by things simply talking about art on the net). Testifying in court or being part in a suit does not grant notability unless secondary sources write about it in depth (they haven't). The single paragraph in the ACLU article is not sufficient depth (nor is it independent since they collaborated on some of those lawsuits).

On the whole, given the complete lack of secondary sources, we can't keep this article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the ACLU links in the article are some support but there’s so much clutter out there arising from similarly named entities that it would take me way too long to try and find RIS. I’m not sure though that that’s a good reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The ACLU stuff isn't really independent though, because they collaborated on those lawsuits. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this amounts to a flash in the pan, I think. It did some things early on in the Internet era that were interesting, but the sources really do not exist to generate Wikipedia notability. A search confirms the name confusion that the nom describes. I saw a few mentions in Google books, but they were not SIGCOV or independent. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked up all the names listed at http://art.net/studios/visual.html and http://art.net/studios/painters.html to see if there is anyone that we have an article on. There is one: Ruth Kedar, one of the founders of art.net. I am conscious of WP:NOTINHERITED, but figured that I might be able to find sources by looking at notable artists who are affiliated with art.net. That doesn't appear to be the case. Vexations (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.