User:Jéské Couriano/Notability fallacies

When someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia decides to write an article and runs into the issue of proving notability as Wikipedia defines it or adhering to their employers' demands, there is often a tendency to try and throw everything that, to their eyes, would seem "notable". This generally does not work.

A "kitchen sink" approach only makes the page come across as promotional due to there being far too much irrelevant or tangential details that add nothing to the article from a layperson's, reviewer's or editor's point of view, much of which isn't actually all that impressive due to being routine (expansion, sales figures), a PR stunt (philanthropic giving), or meaningless (most awards). This page aims to explain why these particular things aren't helpful to add to a draft.

The key thing to remember overall: One must write with a general audience in mind, not customers, investors, or other parties with a vested interest.

Sales figures
Reality: As a general rule, we do not care about sales figures. If they show up anywhere in the article, it should be in the infobox, and unless there's something legitimately significant about the specific figure - an extraordinarily hard bar to clear - they're meaningless to our readers.
 * Misconception: "If I add impressive-enough looking sales figures, that'll get me to notability!"
 * Further Reading:

Locations
Reality: Number of locations and expansion news isn't generally something of interest to anyone but investors or customers, and so such information makes the draft come across as investor-fishing or advertizing. Number of locations shouldn't be in an article, and specific locations should only be added if there's something legitimately noteworthy about them to begin with.
 * Misconception: "My prose is weak, and the notability's thin.... but it's everywhere, so they've gotta give in!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Number of products (and related)
Reality: Even if those 20 different products were notable in and of themselves, this does not translate into notability for the company making them. This also applies to any other endeavour of human creativity (writing, music, film, cartoons, video games) and to curricula vitae, to an extent. Barring specific notability guidelines (such as WP:NBAND), a product/song/etc. being notable does not prevent the people that created it from being non-notable. In addition, an exhaustive list of products, productions, etc. comes off as glaringly promotional; lists should stick to the most notable examples, zenith or nadir.
 * Misconception: "20 different products says we're notable!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Timeline
Reality: We don't like timelines, full stop. If your company history is worth putting in the article (it usually is), then it's worth writing it out in prose. In addition, much like the number of products, an exhaustive history isn't what we're looking for; we're looking to summarise what third-party sources have reported about your subject and its history.
 * Misconception: "A bulleted list of our history will allow us to have all the big parts in our history in an easily-readable format!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Manual of Style/Lists

Random sourcing
Reality: This is more likely to damage the draft. ~95% of Google News results and ~99% of general search results are unusable for Wikipedia's purposes, and it is possible that the bad sources end up choking out any usable sources obtained this way. What we're looking for is in-depth, non-routine, independent sources that discuss the subject, are written by identifiable authors, and are published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts. Passing mentions, routine business news, interviews, press releases, churnalism, and black-hat SEO operations aren't going to be acceptable.
 * Misconception: "Throwing every source I can find in a Google search at the draft should help with notability!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Identifying reliable sources

Philanthropy
Reality: Yes, we would. And not least because this sort of information is screamingly promotional at best, to the point where a standalone section about philathropy or charitable giving is a massive red flag to reviewers. The average Wikipedia reader isn't going to care about this and in fact may complain about it to more experienced editors or help fora, which will generally lead to the section being removed in any event.
 * Misconception: "These guys wouldn't deny an article to an organisation donating to end the scourge of AIDS, would they?"
 * Further Reading: WP:What Wikipedia is not

Associated entities
'Reality: This falls into the exact same issues as above, and comes across as even more promotional than that. Being associated with something or someone who is themselves notable does not make you or your organisation notable in the slightest.
 * Misconception: "If I sponsor someone like, say, Scunthorpe, Arsenal, or Manchester &*^&*( United, they'll have to see we're notable!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Random awards
Reality: Awards are almost literally a dime-a-dozen, and the overwhelming majority do not help for notability in the slightest. Only awards with national reach (or regional/provincewide, for larger countries) have any sort of chance of helping for notability. In addition, there are awards that exist for the sole purpose of making a subject seem more accomplished than they actually are; we treat these awards as spam and will not accept them for any sort of notability argument.
 * Misconception: "Us winning the Pie-Eater Corporation's 'Best Genuflector' award should help on the notability front!"
 * Further reading: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Buzzwords
Reality: The use of buzzwords and other forms of inconcise or marketing language both comes across as promotional and makes the article difficult to follow, which in turn leads to deletion (either at AfD or via WP:G11). This is also something that readers will complain about.
 * Misconception: "Maybe making the draft read like someone vomited a corporate thesaurus will confuse the reviewers/AfD participants enough to allow us to have the article!"
 * Further Reading: WP:Use plain English

No. 1
Reality: Aside from falling under the same issues as sales figures, we consider any claims of being "number one" as puffery at best since sales figures by their very nature are subject to the whims of the customer base, making any such position ephemeral. In order to make a case for notability, you need to demonstrate the subject has a more lasting impact, thru reliable sources.
 * Misconception: "Being the top spot in our business segment should be enough for notability!"
 * Further Reading: