Talk:Artistry (cosmetics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly, this is a blatant attempt by Quixtar to exploit Wikipedia to market it's own brand names. There is absoltely no independent evidence or references, and terms like "breakthroughs" "unique claims" and "NAO's imagery is younger, daring, and more fantasious than Artistry" has absolutely no substantiation in fact, and does not follow Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

Yes, Requires rewriting, I will do so. --Insider201283 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Artistry meets the criteria on two points.

1.The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. Artistry is mentioned in all major independent reports on the global cosmetics industry, eg Euromonitor Here is a section on Artistry in an independent study by the UK Times]. Another independent article

2. Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, it is preferable to keep minor products in lists, and major products in their own article. Alticor is the 25th largest company in the United States and one of the top 150 largest global retails. Artistry cosmetics is approx. 1/3 of Alticor's business and independently ranked one of the top 5 prestige cosmetics brands (euromonitor) in the world. This alone makes it notable. --Insider201283 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Being mentioned in a list is not the same as being the subject of a published work. the article on Amway/Alticor is not too long to include the minial verifiable info that can be found about this produt line. Since you've indicated you're going to re-write the article I'll hold off on nominating it for AfD for a few days. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the "mentioned in a list" idea from? I never said anything about any lists? --Insider201283 23:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another independent article Maintaining the competitiveness of Artistry in the Global Marketplace --Insider201283 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also notable enough for a marketing campaign to be nominated for an Award by the Public Relations Institute of Australia

Good grief man, a google search for +Artistry +Amway gives over 89000 pages! I think I've covered notability, but it still definitely needs a sourced rewrite. --Insider201283 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an article about Amway. In any case, go ahead and do your re-write. -Will Beback · † · 02:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've revealed that you are a dealer of this product it is no longer appropriate for you to edit it directly. Please describe the edits that you think need to be made and let a neutral editor make the changes. -Will Beback · † · 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the sentence re Nutrilite? The reference actually says IS unique, I softened it with "believed to be". --Insider201283 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not unique (see Shaklee), because the only source is the company's website, and because it is basically just marketing. -Will Beback · † · 23:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm unable to find any source for that claim about Shaklee. Their website primarily talks about outsourcing their research, and reading the packages of Shaklee personal care/cosmetics products it seems Shaklee distributes them but does not manufacture them. Do you have a source for your claim? Would it not be better to instead dispute the claim with a source rather than just delete a sourced claim? It is against communications and commercial law to lie about explicit claims such as the one cited - are you accusing Alticor of breaking the law in this video? --Insider201283 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a self-serving claim. Come up with a source besides Alticor or it's business partners and we can include it. -Will Beback · † · 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on editing every article in Wikipedia and removing facts about companies where the primary source is the company? The video is a primary source and valid under WP:RS. Yet more POV editing in violation of Wikipedia guidelines --Insider201283 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To be accurate, the video is not a primary source but rather a "self-published" source under WP:RS. Being a marketing video, it does not meet the requirements for self-published sources under WP:RS. And that's how strict WP:RS enforcement goes. DonIncognito 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Videos such as this published by major corporations are routinely subject to independent legal review of claims. "self-published" sources in WP:RS primarily concerns itself with personal and vanity articles from unknown and potential unreliable sources. Despite your personal views, one of the largest private companies in the world with multiple awards from independent bodies, including in productions of its videos, can be reasonably considered a "reliable source" about it's own activities. --Insider201283 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Disclosure: One of the link references is to a PDF file on my own site, http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com/resources/History_of_Artistry_en_US.pdf. The PDF file is from Amway Taiwan however the link on that site is very very slow to download and often fails (tested 2006-12-26 from multiple countries). I have been unable to find another public source. I believe this is a legitimate reason to link to another source even though it is my own site. Amway has given copyright permission. --Insider201283 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the link, for reasons already discussed at talk:Quixtar. We can use the official site instead. -Will Beback · † · 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The official site does not have the information readily available, as stated above. The original link I provided is a link to a primary source - please provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy which disallows such links. --Insider201283 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Amway link works fine for me. I've provided the relevant guidelines in against adding links to your own site in multiple locations. Please let me know if they're unclear. -Will Beback · † · 23:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If it works fine why didn't you use it and instead linked to the page linking to it? --Insider201283 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a javascript link. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Easily converted - http://www.amway2u.com/corporate/en_US/History_of_Artistry_en_US.pdf --Insider201283 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the level of accusations against me, I'd like to point out that the document in question is hosted on Amway Thailand's servers and as per numerous news reports, earthquakes near taiwan have damaged under sea cables, disrupting internet services throughout Asia. The earthquakes occurred either before or about the time I was reporting the document to be unavailable. The site in question is now completely unavailable to me, I assume for the same reason. --Insider201283 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that internet access will be restored in due time. -Will Beback · † · 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Will take several weeks apparently. I'm pointing this out purely because I've been accused of "link spamming" when there was indeed a very good reason for the alternative sourcing of the article. --Insider201283 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)