Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoShelter


 * 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. However, if someone thinks they can bring this article up to snuff, I'll be happy to userfy or incubate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PhotoShelter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Minimal mention of notability, fails CSD A7 --ZhongHan (Email) 03:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that when I first saved this record, it was deficient under the guidelines I read up on since then (CSD A7). However, I believe I did address the problem by adding the relevant information. Essentially Photoshelter along with its two major competitors (SmugMug and Zenfolio) is providing an alternate marketplace for professional photographers who would otherwise be overlooked by the traditional stock photography business model but do own content that is of broader interest than what local photographers service. SmugMug already does have a record describing the company on Wikipedia and I'm planning on doing a similar write-up on Zenfolio since I do believe this is a market segment that many professional and semi-professional photographers are definitely keenly interested in. I'm also thinking that this evolving market category eventually will need its own name and entry in Wikipedia. At the moment, there is no established naming yet (although "portfolio services" appears to be a leading candidate). I plan on writing up a category entry as well. Klausson (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A7 is immaterial--we're at AfD. Good-faith article on not yet notable company. There appears to be some news coverage, but it's a press release. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is news coverage aside from press releases, mostly in trade publications: Popular Photo Magazine has run a number of articles, some are referenced here: http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/photoshelter/. Business Week has them in their company listing: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=24339754. Giga analysts have covered some aspects of Photoshelter in the context of Getty and Corbis: http://gigaom.com/2007/11/27/photoshelter-wants-to-take-on-getty-images/ (the latter being an inappropriate comparison, IMHO) Klausson (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also one more thing I noticed as I was looking around for similar companies and how they are listed in Wikipedia: From what I can see the list of who is referenced and who is not does not seem to be dictated by notability at the moment. Examples are: SmugMug (listed), Photoshelter and Zenfolio (not listed) are the three largest companies offering professional portfolio services. In the more popular space of photo sharing sites, aside from the market leaders (Flickr, Picasa, Shutterfly, Snapfish - all listed), there are a ton of listings for companies that are virtually unknown and have barely any references (GazoPa, Ipernity, Radar.net, Atpic and others). I understand and agree that standards should be improved even if they were not enforced in the past. But in this case, we are looking at one of the top three players in an admittedly small and specialized space. However, the nice market does have a need for documentation, IMHO. For the record, I'm not affiliated with Photoshelter. I do have an account there as I do on Zenfolio, which also does not yet have a Wikipedia entry and in my opinion should also have one. Klausson (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Klausson, thank you for those links. The Popular Photo article certainly helps, but GigaOM does not strike me as a very notable publication. Let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As it stands, not much indication of notability, and looked vaguely promotional. (I've removed the company's address - Wikipedia is not a directory.) In connection with not being a directory, just because one company (or individual or whatever) has an article, doesn't mean than another should. Perhaps the first one shouldn't either, when it's looked at more closely... If some non-blog coverage was referenced, I'd consider changing my mind - as I always am. Peridon (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Found an article on CNET about the company . Is that adequate for notability?  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To my mind, no. It just says they've added a tool for something. Rather more like a press release than a review or coverage. I could announce an addition to a program of mine - but as I haven't programmed for years no-one would take any notice. Peridon (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete pure spam. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:33, 9 October 2010 (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.