Possibly notable -- should not be speedily deleted

edit

Other:

  • "Photo wars: A $2 billion business gets rough" Business 2.0 Magazine, April 4 2007: 9:15 AM EDT: long article about the phenomenon of these companies in general with multiple mentions of Fotolia. This may or may not be sufficient to establish notability.

I think there are enough passing mentions to justify not speedily deleting the article and the Business 2.0 article may or may be sufficient to establish notability. If it's to be considered for deletion, it should go to AfD. --A. B. (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

To quote Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

It seems to me that "passing mention in a single sentence" counts as something less than "Trivial or incidental coverage," so it doesn't matter how many of them you can find. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a rapidly growing company that is expanding into a number of international markets with offices, websites, staff, etc. I concede that there has been no major, substantial article in a mainstream newspaper or magazine (that I know of), but I believe that the company is still notable enough, given the trendlines, to merit an article.
I'd feel differently if the microstock photography article contained good sections on each of the companies in this new industry, but that isn't the case; until it is, I support keeping this article. In any case, I think we're past the point of a speedy deletion being acceptable - for example, the article no longer reads like an advertisement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
edit

I tried to linkify the website link (fotolia.com) in the infobox, but it's not allowed because the site is on the spam blacklist. Would it be possible to whitelist it only on this page, and only the root domain name? -- Alimony (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply