Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artbyus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a lack of consensus. The article will be kept. --  Denelson83  21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artbyus

Nominate for DELETE because the article was created by someone related to the subject, fails WP:CORP, and contains spam links. -- MyWikiBiz 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why would you delete this because "someone related to the subject" wrote this? This article is based on facts. The links where placed because one of the Wikipedia admins asked to reference the facts. I can take the links out again. This page is as important as for example Squidoo - which is in Wikipedia for a long time. I guess you are not related to the art world. ArtByUs.com is a key art auction site on the Internet. USA Today is about to print a big article on this subject. It will include ArtByUs.com as well. --Ptogel 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you to ScottDavis for cleaning up the article. --Ptogel 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just reading through the rules. They say: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." With artiicles and reports on TV, newspapers, magazines and business journals, this should fit. By now, all the "vanity" is also deleted. --Ptogel 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest of weak keeps (edit conflict) Although I do not like the WP:VSCA aspect to this article, its coverage gives it borderline notability and everything in the article can be verified. I tried to clean it up by taking out some of the more vanity-laden parts. (It was touching that the author included a letter to the founder of the company from George W. Bush for example). JChap2007 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The George W. Bush letter was included because one of the editors wanted to see proof that the founders art is in the collection of a US President. It was not in the original article. Most of the links where intruduced because editors asked for proof. It was not my choice. --Ptogel 17:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't equate sending a painting to Bush and getting a form letter in return with "being in his collection." The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. ;-) JChap2007 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this is not what happened. But why should I expain more. This is the wrong place to discuss it.--Ptogel 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JChap2007 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This was the public letter. We do not have the rights to publish the other documents. They are kept private.--Ptogel 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And deeper, and deeper Ptogel digs, professing that he/she/it is not Conni Togel's son/daughter/husband/partner. To resolve the issue of "who cares" if someone related to the subject creates articles, see: Wikipedia:Autobiography, which says, "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." -- MyWikiBiz 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Go, delete what you want. I don't waste 12 hours for something like that. I was just told by ArtByUs LLC to not support Wikipedia. They also told be that they withdraw the usage of their logo for the usage on Wikipedia. So you win. Go for it. --Ptogel 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep number two of anything is likely to be notable in its field. This nomination appears to be partly motivated to make a point over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies. The article has been cleaned up a lot over the last 14 hours. The motivation of the author to create the article should not be a consideration on whether to keep it. It just needs other editors to help maintain neutrality. --Scott Davis Talk 03:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, the motivation for nomination deserves scrutiny, but the motivation for creating a spam-link fiesta (we have seen the ironies mentioned above) does not? Just so you know, I am the the #2 fastest 400-yard sprinter from the 1977 Grade Three class at Dibble Elementary School in Jackson, Michigan. That's notable? Looking at Alexa.com [1] it actually appears that Artbyus.com is the #1 art auction site now (maybe thanks to spam linking), but the site is averaging maybe 10-12 visitors PER MILLION. That's right up there with AskANinja.com. No, wait. That's TEN TIMES LESS than AskANinja.com. -- MyWikiBiz 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I thought Norman Technologies should have been deleted, and I didn't say Artbyus in its original form was good. One mistake doesn't justify others to establish a pattern. The issues behind NT are what led me here to clean up this article. I'd say it's hard for people close to a subject to be able to write an NPOV article. If they can overcome that, they are usually better positioned to find the right references. And I don't claim a JPEG of a newsclipping on the subject's website is as close to a reliable source as the article on the newspaper's website would be. This article has had a lot of the cruft trimmed out now. --Scott Davis Talk 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Appears to meet WP:CORP but not sure if it meets WP:WEB and if that is a reason to delete since WP:CORP may not apply. Vegaswikian 18:29, 23 August 2006 (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.