Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShutterStock

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ShutterStock

advertising, insignificant -Mego'brien

• Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisment Sulfur 03:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, apparently "the largest subscription-based stock photo agency in the world" [1] Kappa 13:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some source for that claim other than the company's own press release turns up. If it were really the largest in the world, they wouldn't need to post an advertisement on Wikipedia themselves. —Cryptic (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:Also passes WP:WEB with an Alexa rank of 1,916 [2]. Kappa 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What on earth does an alexa ranking have to do with WP:WEB? —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK, looks like the Alexa rank has been removed as a criterion. Anyway it's ranked in the top 2,000 websites by an independent third-party source, and wikipedia has space for more that 2,000 websites. Kappa 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Alexa rank 1916, according to their own web page, they host nearly 600,000 photos. Doesn't seem to compare too badly with IStockPhoto, which was just bought up by Getty Images. Lots of pertinent Google hits, too. Hence keep and expand. Lupo 16:09, 27 February 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.