Talk:Fotolia

• Just 306 unique Google hits ([http://www.google.com/search?q=Fotolia&num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&start=0&sa=N 1 to 100], [http://www.google.com/search?q=Fotolia&num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&start=300&sa=N 301 to 306]
• Google [http://news.google.com/news?q=Fotolia&num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn news search] (last 90 days):
• [http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9711663-7.html "Shutterstock raises photographers' pay"] -- CNet News.com Blog - Apr 23, 2007: passing mention in a single sentence along with similar companies
• [http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9709697-2.html "LuckyOliver: stock photography for circus-folk?"] -- Webware/Cnet, CA - Apr 17, 2007: passing mention in a single sentence along with similar companies
• [http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070401/ask-inc_Printer_Friendly.html "Branding and Cashing Out"] -- Inc.com, NY - Apr 11, 2007: passing mention in a single sentence along with similar companies
• [http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/04/digital_stock_p.html "Digital Stock Photography Companies Deal With Disruption"] -- Business 2.0, CA - Apr 10, 2007: passing mention in a single sentence along with similar companies
• [http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=22023&hed=PhotoShelter+Snaps+Up+%244.2M§or=Industries&subsector=InternetAndServices "PhotoShelter Snaps Up $4.2M"] -- Red Herring, CA - Apr 17, 2007: passing mention in a single sentence along with similar companies
• [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/10corbis.html?ei=5124&en=409db41a8e789a6e&ex=1333944000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print "A Photo Trove, a Mounting Challenge"] New York Times, NY - Apr 10, 2007

Other:

• [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm?postversion=2007040409 "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)

: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.

::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)

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)