Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamstime


 * 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 Keep - arguments that it meets WP:N carry a lot more weight than concerns that it could be spammy at some future date, and the argument that an article is intrinsically spammy just because it's about a company carries no weight at all. Wily D 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dreamstime

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -The article is not self-promotive. No flowerey words or customer inticement. No positive adjectives. It is what a Wiki article should be.....INFORMATIVE. It should not be deleted. Improved, perhaps. But not deleted.```Buster Seven   Talk  19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)....More.....The reference used is focussed on the $2Billion dollar stock photography industry. It is a qualified secondary source providing background for the reader. ```Buster Seven   Talk  19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That all well and good, however the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and the subject fails WP:NOTABILITY.--Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As stated..."...common sense and occasional exceptions may apply". I believe this is one of those occasions. ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize that what your quoting is the the general wording in template subcat guideline, which applies to the guideline, not to the article in question. An article has to be notable to be included, which Dreamstime isn't.--Hu12 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I do realize that. I mistakenly thought the mention of common sense and exceptions might do the trick. I guess I was wrong. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has been edited and more references added. The style is neutral and the info added has been taken from third party resources and from the site itself. Hope the deletion will be reconsidered. Thank you. Carmenmaftei (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Carmenmaftei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you aware of WP:COI? Please disclose your relationship to this subject.--Hu12 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware of the COI. I am now, thank you for pointing that out. Even if I am in any way affiliated to Dreamstime and, I stand by what I said. The page is written in a neutral tone and it is does not sound like self-advertisement. I believe it should stay online because it offers generic info about a company that is among the first four in the microstock industry. Others may contribute to this page if they wish in the future as ther eis still a lot of info to add. To my knowledge, pages with incomplete info are still left online on Wikipedia so why not this? If in your opinion it is self-advertisment, then I am afraid I have nothing further to add. It is my own fault for not reading all the policies (esp the COI) but I cannot see how one can be more neutral than this. Carmenmaftei (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Carmenmaftei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So your choosing to hide your conflict of interest? Deception in order to advancing outside interests and promote Dreamstime by exploiting Wikipedia does not lend itself to being neutral.--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean hide my conflict of interests? I am saying that this page offers some generic info about the company and the tone is neutral. I think I have the right to defend the edits I've made. All I tried was to give more info and make the page structure more similar to that of other microstock agencies. The company page was already there and I feel bad that my edits led to being marked for deletion. If there is anything I can do restore the page back to how it was, I will. Would that be ok or allowed? I am not exploiting Wikipedia to advertise for Dreamstime. I do not think the article does this. If any of my early edits were wrong, it was because I failed to read all policies. The page currently looks acceptable in my opinion but it is your right to disagree. Carmenmaftei (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Few people will edit tendentiously topics in which they have no connection. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is ok to create a fake ID, hide your name and then add info? If I did that, would that have been ok? Not to me. I believe whatever is written on the page should be taken into consideration. I have read other pages and seen shameless self promotion, really. I guess it is ok for others because they create fake IDs and hide behind a fake name. No conflict of interest there. Anyway I am not debating this, I understand your point of view and the policies. I asked whether restoring the old page would be ok. This is what I need to know. Just to let you know, I have now set my resume as confidential. It is not that I am hiding, I never said I was not affiliated to Dreamstime, it is just that I have a problem with my resume being posted online. It was active by mistake. This is rather sensitive info, at least for me. Hope you can understand and respect that. You can find any of my other profiles if you wish to make a point of who I am but no links to my resume. I have not really kept my name hidden, so you can find my other pages. Thank you. Carmenmaftei (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site.--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine there are people taking advantage and I am sure this is what the COI policy is for. I just think it is a bit unfair to apply the rule generally without considering the text itself. This is what stays on Wikipedia. I was not aware of the policy really but I do not make any excuses for that - my mistake for not reading the guidelines. My mistake for editing the article several times. My mistake for trying to add as much info as possible. As soon as I saw the notice, I edited and left the info as little and generic as possible. I am not trying to break the rules, ok? On the contrary. I do not wish to promote the company, I am just trying to make sure it has a page structure and info similar to other agencies. Moreover, I thought the other pages were self-ads and I tried to avoid that. If you look at the info that is now there for Dreamstime and you feel it should be deleted anyway because it is self-promotion, then perhaps some policies should not be applied blindly - speaking of openness. Carmenmaftei (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't (such as Dreamstime), conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that other articles exists doesn't prove that Dreamstime should also exist. Policies are not applied blindly, infact Wikipedia policy for inclusion is quite specific, which unfortunatly Dreamstime does not meet. --Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my arguments. I did not say that if other similar articles exist, so should Dreamstime. I said I tried to make the page structure more like theirs, thus justifying my edits. I think the Dreamstime page should exist because the company operates worldwide, it is a strong community with four million users and an important player in the microstock market. And other arguments can be added but I will refrain from doing this and I am sure you can understand why. Don't want to add further fuel for the COI thing. Carmenmaftei (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a company doing the things a company does. Delete as per WP:ROUTINE. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So. Our reader is denied information about a viable company because the most recent editor that chisseled the article down to its basics was not aware that self-identification of a conflict of interest was required suggested. Over reaction to the max. I hope this editor can move on to other areas and articles and become a contributing member of our community. ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak keep and encourge better research by those wishing to expand the topic. I was invited to visit the article and discussion. I first visited the article, did some research, performed copyedit, and added a source, and notified the 2009 author and a few other article contibutors before coming here.  Sorry Buster7. Sorry Carmenmaftei. Its not that anyone wishes to deny information, but for inclusion within Wikipedia, that information must be in enough sources to show notability. In building any article, it is required that information in such articles be verifiable in reliable sources. THAT was why the article was timmed so deeply... too much unsourced information. We are in no means denying its existance, but as an entity it simply has not been the recpient of enough coverage to meet Wikipedia inclusion requirements. If either of you wish to work on improving this article outside of article space, please ask me and I will put it a workspace for you. And a major hint: A search for "Dreamstime" simply finds all the articles IN reliable sources that have made use of images from Dreamstime and have the word DReamstime under the image as copyright holder. If one modifies one's search parameter to search for sources for the founders "Serban Enache" and "Dragos Jianu" and the website "Dreamstime.com" itself, searches are far more successfull, revealing usable sources (many of which will require translating), but non-English are fine. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those google search URLs reveal zero hits for me. Is it a session-data issue? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same ...Nothing here or here except trivial mentions which does not establish this topics notability.--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero?? Very strange. How did your searches miss, nestled amongst the many press releases, the authored articles in wall-street.ro, (traslation) the rather lengthy article in Nashville Business Journal and the second one in Nashville Business Journal  ? Still sticking with a Weak keep. At worst, let it be userfied to one of those above willing to improve it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are excellent examples of non-independent sources, all of them based on interviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the second Nashville Business Journal link is simply a repackaged press releases of THIS authored by "Dreamstime.com PR Kat Atwood.... "... note at the top; "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.". Regional and local publishers use the national news feeds, such as Reuters, AP ect, to fill up their websites with content and sometimes press releases slip through and are merely advertisements masquerading as news.... --Hu12 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt and Buster7. The trimmed version by Schmidt works fine. Cavarrone (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone through the three sources being used and Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.. For example...The money.cnn.com, would seem legit, however the only mention of Dreamstime is as follows;
 * " .The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott. "
 * -money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409
 * Is non-independent (based on the COO Jeff Prescott statement), is also merely trivial coverage, such as: inclusion in lists of similar organizations - fails WP:CORPDEPTH
 * -microstockinsider.com/site_reviews/dreamstime
 * Is a personal blog post, on the author's (Steve Gibson) personal website - Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG
 * -alexa.com/siteinfo/dreamstime.com
 * Isnt even a source, merely existing or having a website does not establish notability

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Clearly Dreamstime Fails Notability.--Hu12 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any article needs to be neutrally presented to avoid WP:ADVERT, and any extraodrinary claim needs proper citation... whether for Apple Computers, Burger King, or some lesser known Romanian company. This article has thus been so edited to address the issue of tone. And while focusing on weaknesses of some authored articles aparently inspired by those press releases, you still have not refuted the three-page article at Nashville Business Journal nor the Romanian-language one at wall-street.ro nor the fact that this Romanian company and its founders have sourcability in the Romanain language. So even if determinable as not very notable to the United States, a notability to Romania is just fine, and with the unrefuted sources we have a meeting of WP:WEB, WP:CORP and its subset WP:CORPDEPTH. Naturally, a Romanian-founded company and website will not have the English language United States coverage as might an entity like Warner Bros. and yes... the article will bear a close watch to ensure it does not again become full of unsurced puffery. And a last thought toward policy... Alexa rankings require the widely accepted verifiability to Alexa itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, the interesting source is this one from CNN Money, which says: "The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott." There are two ways to parse that sentence.  Either it means "The other large, independent player is Dreamstime... according to COO Jeff Prescott", or else it means, "The other large independent player is Dreamstime... and [according to COO Jeff Prescott] has been profitable since launch".  If you parse it the first way, then Dreamstime isn't notable.  If you parse it the second way then realistically, it is, because CNN money's a reliable source. In my considerable experience of Wikipedia AfDs, I've found that mentioning the Alexa rank usually gets you a link to WP:ATA.  Please don't link that to me.  I'm very well aware of what it says, and I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought when I say: an Alexa rank in the top 1000 strongly suggests that this is the kind of topic Wikipedia ought to cover.  On the other hand, I'm also conscious that we've only got one decent source and it doesn't say very much.  It's hard to construct a workable article on the basis of almost no reliably-sourced information.  On balance I'm going to go with weak keep for the moment, but let's keep an eye on the amount of editor time that it takes to maintain it.  If any promotional material gets reinserted, then I'll very rapidly start to take the view that this is more trouble than it's worth.— S Marshall  T/C 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI...I created (via cut-n-paste) User:Carmenmaftei/Sandbox-Dreamstime to assist this new editor in her early efforts to acquaint herself with WP rules and regulations and implement them in editing this article. Let's all remember...its not easy being new.```Buster Seven   Talk  16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your unaware, or just want to help companies exploit Wikipedia for advertising purposes, but this user is not here to Build or improve the encyclopedia, rather is a paid employee who is here for the sole or primary purpose of using Wikipedia in order to promote Dreamstime and their products in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...Questions?.--Hu12 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Hu12. You are way off base in your evaluation of how I feel about Paid Editors. Please see WP:Paid operatives, an essay of mine. I feel Paid Editing may be the ruin of what we know as Wikipedia. Granted, the essay's focus is political advocacy/operatives, but I feel no different about article editors that use Wikipedia to pay their mortgage. But...I think you are wrong about this editor. She may have a conflict of interest but that does not entitle us to throw her into the moat. She chopped the article down to it's basics which shows potential. I really don't give 2 shits if this article gets deleted or not. But, I do care that this speedy deletion process rakes new editors over the coals and forgets to assume good faith. I have absolutely no bond with this new editor except as a fellow Wikipedian. Unless you can provide verification of your jaded claim that the editor in question has come here to undermine the process, I'll continue to support her...(or him if Carmen is a guy). BTW, I support the idea of Merge. ```Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bleh. I find that I sympathize with elements of both sides of the argument here. This article was the result of a publicity push, and we've seen that such articles can require an effort out of proportion to their importance to maintain in a neutral way. On the other hand, this company exists, and appears to be a successful player in a nascent internet industry that may well continue to grow. So, with Solomon's sword in hand, I'll opine: 1. the company lacks sufficient sourcing to justify an article at this time, 2. the company seems to have a level of success that normally brings such sourcing in time 3. we have an article about this new industry at Microstock photography that could comfortably house the reliably sourced content until there is better sourcing. So, in lieu of deletion, merge to Microstock photography keeping the edit history in the redirect in case it's needed. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Microstock photography as per User:Xymmax. Changed vote, see above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2012 (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.