Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 16

Inheritance sentence tacked on to the bottom of NPRODUCTS
There is an errant and contradictory passage tacked on to a sentence at the bottom of WP:PRODUCTS which reads:
 * Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result .

This appears to be in conflict with the first section (WP:ORGIN) which reads in part:
 * Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. (emphasis mine)

WP:ORGIN clearly states that the verifiable evidence about the "organization or product" may be applied to notability for organizations equally, not that the organization must be notable independent of the product. (To avoid product perma-stubs, product articles are often merged to organization articles.)

The passage in question cites an essay (i.e., an advice page concerning AfD discussion, not a guideline or policy) and a quick search of this (NCOPRP) talk page archive shows no discussion on this matter substantial change to PRODUCTS. Logic would dictate that since WP:ORGIN is above the fold (in the first section of the guideline), that it holds priority. The sentence in question is in the next to the last section and also contradicts with much of the verbiage contained within its own section concerning merging products into articles about corporations.

The sentence was added 19 April 2011 diff And in fact, the edit by this single user changed the tone of the entire section. The first appearance of not inherited in the PRODUCTS section appears to have been added on 12 November 2015.diff

I move the errant and contradictory passage (or entire edit) be struck from NPRODUCTS as it is causing problems in AfD as exhibited here -- an article where I have no COI. 19:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment prior to edit,diff the passage read:
 * This seems much more concise and non-contradictory to me, the best solution might just be to revert. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems much more concise and non-contradictory to me, the best solution might just be to revert. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think the policy is contradictory... It's just talking about two different scenarios: a) where a notable company makes a non-notable product ... and b) where a non-notable company makes a notable product.  Blueboar (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that when notability is established for either organization or product, the preferred placement is in an article about the organization to avoid perma-stubs. ORGIN is implicitly inclusive to permit organization articles in your example b). In example a), a non-notable product could be included in a notable organization's article, but a non-notable product could not have a stand-alone product article per the GNG regardless of the parent organization's notability. Regards009o9Disclosure(Talk) 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Blueboar has it correct there. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, the organization article example I've cited in AfD, would be a viable product article. I'm sure that this would be preferable in the company's judgement, because a Wikipedia article about product would be exponentially better for the company's product branding and search result presence. Having the product buried in a subsection of a corporate article, gives it far less search engine juice. The "reads like an advertising" crowd would come unglued in the "product article" eventuality -- I think allowing the corporate article is a better option.  009o9Disclosure(Talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on which aspect is notable... the company, the product, both, neither? That is determined by reference to independent sources. If the independent sources discuss the product, but don't really discuss the company, then the product is what is notable, not the company (or vise versa).  Also, remember that even a notable topic can be written about in a way that comes across as being overly promotional... we don't want that.  The solution, however, is not to get rid of the article... the solution is to rewrite it, so it comes across as being informative, but not promotional. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would also be my interpretation of WP:ORGIN; however, the current WP:PRODUCTS conflicts with your understanding, please read it again to see if a (notable and npov) product article could created or survive AfD. It's been modified in an attempt to eliminate product articles and thereby limit corporate articles by arguing the coverage is about the product. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The revert I'm proposing would the restore original consensus, which is described in your response. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any conflict. Generally, if a company is notable, the article should be about the company... and any notable products can be mentioned in that article.  An exception is made when discussing the products would make the article too large (in which case we can hive off some of the notable products into their own sub-article).  If, on the other hand, the product is what is notable (and not the company), we should have an article on the product and not have an article about the company - that what the last paragraph explicitly addresses. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, with the understanding that Product and Services articles are viable stand alone articles. (For clarity, the section should have a WP:SERVICES shortcut to reflect the title and content). As long as we understand that the original consensus read: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself..." The editor in question took it upon himself to prefix the sentence with, "If a company is notable,..." some of the legacy editors still feel that merging to the parent organization is the guideline. Pinging some of the recent interested contributors from this talk page for a broader consensus, since we are institutionalizing the 19 April 2011 diff. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That last clause was inaccurate and inappropriate, and I've just removed it from the guideline page. NOTINHERITED generally does not apply to the relationship between creators and the work they create; the notability there is generally shared. In the commercial context, as opposed to the context of creative professionals, the sharing may not be as extensive, but incorporating the generally inapplicable principles described in NOTINHERITED into the guideline is simply wrong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree, actually; there's been all manner of rulings at AfD where a non-notable (creator/work) gets redirected to the notable (work/creator), from plays to novels to record albums. But that being said, I'm having a fit of the stupids today. Exactly what is being proposed here, and what exactly is the alternative?   Ravenswing   17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the main issue, that's a given. NOTINHERITED is an essay and shouldn't be incorporated into a guideline by reference, and it indicates that there's not real notability relationship between the company and the products it produces. The issue isn't whether there's a shared notability; it's whether the notabiolity extends to one or both. That's a case-by-case determination, not the general rule otherwise that was added without sufficient discussion. NOTINHERITED keeps being added to situations it's not intended to apply to, to the point that we regularly see the spurious argument in AFDs that doing notable work can't make a scientist notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  noting that WP:INHERITORG excludes products and services from the definition.  WP:PRODUCT already reads much better, but I would also remove the "If a company is notable," from the first sentence to restore it to the original meaning: "Information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Such an edit would bring it back into congruence with WP:ORGIN "...that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources...". 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO: The two edits (diff And diff) eliminates the option for more experienced reviewers to determine that a notable product should be merged into a corporate article where the corporation is not independently notable. The prior and preferred consensus was to merge the product into an article about the corporation -- the two edits changed the customary process. The "inheritance" suffixed verbiage, changes the long held merge understanding to now favor articles about individual products imho. The problem is that corporate articles are being AfD'd just because the product is notable and there isn't much RS on the corporation itself. So to clarify, does Wikipedia want the product articles or the organizational articles? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally... If both the company and the product are notable, we default to an article on the company. However... If the product is notable, but the company isn't then an article on the product is acceptable.  The key is that a company is not notable simply because it makes a notable product. The product does not "make" the company notable simply by  existing.  To say that the company is notable, we need sources that discuss the company. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blueboar is exactly correct here. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Blueboar, though I have seen a rare exception made for when a non-notable company has put out many many notable related products (eg, more than 4-5), that the company page may be crafted with barest information to serve as a navigational aid between those inter-related products, often pulling primary information from the company to explain founding, ownership, location, number of employees, etc. No, the company's still not notable on that alone, but pages that do aid in navigation are not always subject to the same notability requirements as other topics. This is not to be taken as an automatic allows that once a company has 4-5 notable products, they are automatically notable; this should only be considered when the navigation purpose is clear. 4-5 unrelated products likely don't need a navigation aid page. --M ASEM  (t) 18:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I foresee is that there are thousands of articles that conform to the old version of WP:PRODUCT i.e., notable product merged (or preferenced) into an organization article. I guess that'll keep everyone busy.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, something to keep in mind, from WP:GNG, is that we are not required to have a standalone article on a notable topic; merging to a larger article to give more context may be appropriate. So for example, a non-notable company with 4-5 notable products - but nothing more than about 2000 words for each, could easily support the context of each product on the company page, redirecting the products to that. Note that this is an editorial decision, there's no exact guidance for when to do this, but it is an acceptable option. --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The local guidance was clear on this before it was edited without consensus: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC) WP:ORGIN still indicates that coverage about "organization or product" can satisfy notability requirements.  Also, note that WP:INHERITORG speaks to everything except products and services. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. A non-notable company does not get an article because of a notable product.  No. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should start a new proposal to have that added to WP:INHERITORG 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The relationship isn't that simple as to be summed up unambiguously in a quick phrase. The  customary widely accepted meaning of NOT INHERITED is in that inheritance normally though not invariably flows downwards, as from parents to  children, and what NOT INHERITED means in this context, is that even for the most notable of companies, not all their products are necessarily notable.  (As an analog, not every alumnus of a famous university is notable.) On the other hand, most companies« do become notable by producing notable products--in general, if it didn't do that, why would anyone be interested in them in the first place? There are special cases such as financial companies and the like, where the idea of "product" is non-tangible., but it is still the work the firms do that makes them appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Despite this, there are instances where a company is almost entirely known for a single product or product line, and the obvious place for an article is the name of the product.    DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that "most companies do become notable by producing notable products." Some do, some don't. Remember the pet rock? Most fruits are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, but most growers who produce them aren't. Some wines achieve notability while the winery remains obscure. But I agree, if the company is known only for a notable product, the proper place for information about the company is in the article about the product. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment since a change to the guideline has already been made (Nov. 2015 change reverted), I added "under discussion" inline to WP:PRODUCT. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's say that Joe Blow invents the notable "Wonder Widget". He sells the manufacturing rights to Obscure Company... a subsidiary of Faceless Corp. How does "inheritance" work in this situation?  Does Faceless Corp inherit the Widget's notability?  Does Obscure Co?  Does Joe Blow?  Blueboar (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You ask, how does inheritance work? It doesn't. Notability is not inherited. If Wonder Widget meets our notability criteria for inclusion, then Wonder Widget merits an article. If the associated parties aren't themselves notable, then at most they merit a mention or short description in the article about Wonder Widget. An analogy might be the intermittent windshield wiper. Two individuals, the inventor and the engineer who filed the original patent application, are not themselves sufficiently notable to merit an article, but they do deserve a mention in the windshield wiper article. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Amatulic I ~think~ Blueboar agrees with that and was trying to get 009o9 to articulate what they are saying more clearly Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blueboar Can a person have more than one inheritance in her lifetime? Can an inheritance be split among survivors? If the product became notable, Obscure Company could use this as evidence of notability (either for a product or a corporate article -- which is what this discussion is about). If Joe Blow was also a topic (per GNG) of the independent reliable coverage, he could also claim evidence of notability. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Faceless Corp's role in Wikipedia has always been at the whim of the closing editor, but I would say if Faceless created Obscure, rather than purchasing it, some notability "might" inferred. Wikipedia is primarily about creative works where people are concerned. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like everyone is leaning toward allowing product and services articles instead of rolling these topics up into organizational articles. However, that leave the third paragraph, "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." The paragraph ambiguous and has no context if the parent company must be notable, as prefixed in sentence 1. Where do we put these "stubs" and what defines a stub? The guidance in WP:STUB tells us: "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub." Should the paragraph be struck? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 20:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If some article is a permastub it is likely to get deleted or merged into an article about the product class; we actually do this all the time when we find articles that have been created about brands of drugs - we generally merge them into the article on the generic drug product.  So deletion or merge away into some other article.  It doesn't have to go into the company article, especially if the company isn't notable.   The advice about not  spamming tons of stubs into WP about marginally notable products is good advice. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This guidance does not reflect that, and paragraph four says to rollup non-notable articles into the company's article and says nothing about a product class. The guidance needs to be clearer so the content is composed correctly in the first place. This is just making more work for everybody, including at AfC and AfD. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 21:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is... While we want to cover every notable topic or subject... somewhere in Wikipedia... not every notable topic needs its own article to be covered. Sometimes it simply makes senseto cover something in an article about a related (notable) topic.  This is usually the case with products.  It makes sense to cover products in an article about the company that makes them.  The exception is when the product is far more notable than the company (or when the company isn't all that notable at all).   This is not an inheritance issue.  It's an issue of discussing things in the most appropriate context. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that it is not an inheritance issue, its an issue that the consensus has changed. The solution is getting the content written in the proper context in the first place to avoid winding up in the drama-boards. The guidance, as written, is unclear on what format the community wants. If you tell the editor that it belongs in an article about similar products, that's fine, she will write the content in that format and then see if the subject matter grows (either the company or the product) into an article of its own.  At is stand now, the guidance leans toward telling the editor write the content in the context of a company article.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 00:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

{{talkquote|'''
 * Comment Here is my understanding of the consensus so far.

Products and services
'''

Information on notable products and services should generally be included within:
 * 1) an article that describes similar products or services,
 * 2) an article about the parent organization, if that organization is notable independent of the product or service.

When a discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.

If an organization's name is indistinguishable from its product or service, and the subject is notable, the content would generally belong in an article formatted for organizations, to provide a more complete article. (updated 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article content into an article with a broader scope such as the company's article, an article that discusses similar products or services, or propose it for deletion. }}
 * For an alternate viewpoint, Jytdog has edited the above topic in the mainspace, linking to WP:DELETE rather than WP:PROD. I've updated this copy to include both policy pages. (updated 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC))


 * Thought I had something here, but I realized there is an additional case, where the company name and product/service is identical, how is that article content to be formatted? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 01:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added WP:FAILN as a shortcut under "non-notable" as a hatnote is isn't prevalent enough imho. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be opening issue after issue. I made an edit earlier to resolve your new question about what to do with non-notable articles about products that happen to come into existence. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit in no way describes the process in WP:FAILN, which is a much more newbie friendly read. This is supposed to be guidance for new editors, so they don't submit the non-notable stuff in the first place. I'm not going to revert your edit to the guideline, but somebody should. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is much more clear; before it made it sound like MERGE wasn't an option under WP:DELETION and it is; and it makes it more clear that stumpy articles are not likely to hang around long. How do you see it as not clear? Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How does "If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article..." make it sound like merge is not an option? Not everything has to go to the AfD, you can merge the content and leave a redirect or WP:PROD the article to see if it goes away. This is how the original sentence read to me. Your version says take everything to AfD first. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DELETION. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FAILN for the proper procedures to take before you go to WP:DELETION.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't contradict. and by writing it that way you are skewing what WP:DELETION actually says.   Anyway we don't agree.  In any case, others will weigh in eventually.   Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought about this some more. MERGE is an alternative to deletion discussed in WP:DELETION; this resolves the confusion i introduced. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's better than your previous, but I think that trying for an uncontested WP:PROD was more appropriate because not not many regular editors will jump through the hoops required to initiate an AfD. I think you will get less participation, not more. If you insist on going to AfD first, why not just provide the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO? WP:PROD was implemented to limit the amount of editor interaction and clutter at AfD. An even better link would be WP:FAILN which describe the entire process the passage is about, in a short read, and provides links to both PROD and DELETION. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 20:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PROD is one of the several options under WP:DELETION. We should cite the policy, which is stronger. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PROD is policy, and in this case has the presumption of consensus. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointless: every form of deletion (PROD, Speedy, and AfD) is described in the DELETION, as are the alternatives, including MERGE. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are sending the casual editor to a wall of text that doesn't even mention PROD until 5 pages down, have it your way. LMAO 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The proposal above seems reasonable. Certainly a notable product does not make parent company (companies) notable. Imagine we would have to trace shell companies and whatsnot in some cases :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible unintended creation of new article class -- "product type" ?

 * add section for convenience, discussion continues from above 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the proposed verbiage reflects the current hostility toward articles about corporations, organizations and nonprofits. Alternately, it opens the door for product articles, an example would be Electronic lock. A notable implementation would qualify for an article/section and then all non-notable implementations would be allowed to pile-on citing WP:NNC and WP:DUE. The unintended consequence could be that articles like Electronic lock become inundated with subsections that appear to be a lot like product placements. Could turn out to be harder to police than corporate articles and the product/service might receive more exposure because it is included in articles that are already well read. Luggage lock get 103 reads per day, a typical corporate article will get about 6 spiders hitting it daily, will the innovative locking product also be allowed as subsections where similar technology is involved?  009o9Disclosure(Talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that has anything to do with NOTABILITY. And the purpose of this guideline is provide guidance and resolve disputes when they arise with regard to applying NOTABILITY to companies; yes education of editors is a never ending effort. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly would not want to see such spam smuggled to articles, but the proposed change seems to clearly say that only info on notable products can be summarized there. If it is not notable, we don't mention it. If it is, we can and then ewentually split it off. Seems rather straightforward, I don't see how it can be easily abused? (Beyond the everyday spam abuse we already are drowning in). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My observation is that at the minimum, forcing the notable product/service out the parent (organizational) article (per the current reading WP:PRODUCT) might inadvertently create an adhoc "product review" type of article. According to WP:NNC only the subject of the article must meet notability, once established, the content of the article does not. So one product/service establishes notability and WP:DUE might infer that the competitor's product should be included.
 * As it stands now, organizational articles are usually created by a single purpose (new) account, and go through AfC, so they are fairly easy to review/patrol. I'm just wondering how the content may proliferate through existing articles and how much harder those edits would be to patrol.
 * For instance, here's an article that was recently AfD'd (saved to my user-space, but not my client). Does the article's notable aspects get broken up into sections and inserted into three or four (somewhat related) existing articles? Or, if the subject where allowed to have an article of its own, a simple blue-link in the See also section(s) might be a better idea than endorsing new sections/passages that appear to be well-sourced product placements. Finally, I'm thinking that instead of creating an adhoc "product review" style of article, the legacy procedure of merging product/service under the organization's name is still preferable. Do we even have any examples where the product or service has been added to "an article about the type of product"? (as appears to be Jytdog's insistence diff) 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on that; don't mischaracterize me. It is an option.  Things can go lateral to the product class or vertical to the company; it depends on what makes sense for the encyclopedia Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why did you remove the original verbiage at 00:52, 14 May 2016, after you had already engaged in discussions here concerning the section on 22:18, 9 May 2016? In WP:Product, you removed "...company's article..." and replaced it with "...an article about the type of product...", seems like the should have been discussed first. WP:NOMORE 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Focus on the guideline and the arguments; not the people. I do agree with Blueboar per your second dif, and as i said, content will go where it is best for the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No has supported your position here, 009o9. And I will again ask you to stop directly editing key guidance documents directly related to your paid editing work; you have a COI here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please follow your own advice above, and, "Focus on the guideline and the arguments; not the people." COI or not, you have not supported your argument here, nor found consensus, I merely reverted to the longstanding consensus, prior to your adhoc changes. There are 125,516 actives editors, let's see what a few more of them think about the possible consequences of your version. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest is not about you as a person; it is about your role as a Wikipedia editor. I understand that as a paid editor it is convenient for you to try to obliterate that distinction but there is a difference that the community has recognized for a long time. Again if I bring this to the community and lay out your history of editing these guidelines and then citing your changes to defend your paid editing work at the article level and in deletion discussions, the pattern of what you have been doing will be really clear to see and people will  not like it and this will damage your reputation as a Wikipedia editor and make it yet harder for you to be effective here.  I would prefer to avoid the drama and I would think that you would as well  Please stop directly editing the policies, guidelines and essays.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not going to sit down and shutup like a third-class citizen in policy areas, clarifying the guidance to reflect current consensus is a necessary activity, and as part of the community, I will express my pov without limitation. The editing restriction only applies to article space, but I'm sure you'll run right over and edit that guidance to fit your agenda too. Do what you have to do. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No i wouldn't make such a bold change to the COI guideline. The community is divided on paid editing but pretty much every sane editor, no matter how strongly they feel about the issue on any side, would agree that paid editing is allowed with limits.  Again my sense is that if I initiate an RfC using your behavior as the example, even those who think paid editing is fine are going to struggle with what you have done, and the likely result will be a consensus on these limitations for all paid editors.  Because of your self-interested use of the changes you have made to these guidance documents in your editing and deletion arguments, you are a bad test case for the paid editing side. Please just agree to stop editing these guidance documents directly.   Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Why not? You've been editing the WP:COI guidance all along and you've also worked up quite a file of nNPOV activities with me. Are you asking me to stop reverting your unsolicited changes, or to stop writing helpful passages like the one that noted the misuse of Template:ADVERT? You know the one you removed here.20:26, 20 May 2016 The removal seems to reflect the changes you made to the template guidance doc,21:40, 17 March 2016 after I pointed out the misuse a few days earlier.19:06, 14 May 2016

I also see that you also accused 19 editors? of COI editing on the RepRap project fiasco back in March 2016, seems like your combative editing habits also made the press, after you pruned the article from 41 references down to 2. I don't think I really need to take your admonishments very seriously.

I've been volunteering my time, participating in constructive discussions from the viewpoint of the declared COI editor. Removing maintenance tags and notability discussions are not areas where I have a COI that isn't overcome by my disclosure, which is in every signature. It's been two years since the Foundation's ruling and the entire discussion on the Wikipedia side appears to come from the deletionist perspective. Declared paid editing has been an interesting experiment and what I mostly found, besides the expected prejudice, is that many project guidelines do not reflect local consensus. If the Wikipedia doesn't wan't certain articles, then put it in writing so (more) new editors don't write them. But find the consensus first, I'd highly recommend that for you, so you don't wind up in the press again. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pesonally attacking me is not helpful to you - in fact it reflects negatively on you. Again, this is not personal. It is structural. I am sorry you can't see the problem with a paid editor directly editing these guidance documents. I will figure out a way to address this. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I view this edit as a personal attack, going toward integrity, you opened that door. Your COIN background also becomes relevant to the discussion when you propose expanding the paid disclosure limitations. Must be a pretty cushy deal to make up the rules as you go and enforcing them too, you really don't see a problem with that? Speaking of not mentioning, you haven't addressed the undiscussed change you made to this guideline, under discussion at the time, which I eventually found concerns with (a possible new class of article) and reverted per WP:WPEDIT. So I ask again, please tell us why your version should be sustained over the longstanding original? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 08:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not eliminate the parenthetical? I don't see much difference between the two versions and it is just a suggestion anyway. It so happens that I was thinking of writing an article on "Zud," the powdered cleanser, if I can find the sourcing, for the simple reason that Zud is about something else entirely. If it is not notable, I don't know how I feel about it being included in an article on Powdered cleansers or on the manufacturer, whatever that may be. The important thing is that the article not be used for promotion. By the way, I am uncomfortable with paid editors engaged in discussions like this. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the Tennis ball and Digital lock articles, when a specific product/organization is mentioned, the details are blue-linked. I think the project type, currently in WP:PRODUCT and my assessment of consensus, opens a loophole that will be extremely tough to administer.
 * The reason that brought me here is the ever increasing threshold for establishing notability. Here's my copy of the test article (no COI) User:009o9/Digi-Pas and the closed AfD. Something in the guidelines is not aligning with AfC and AfD IMHO, one or the other needs to be fixed.  Concerning the paid editing in policy discussions, Jytdog took it to his home turf in COIN, chime in if you like. He'd like to make it impossible for paid editors to revert edits and maintenance tags, i.e., WP:BRD.  I've asked if that includes WP:PRODs, or if that is the next step. Regards 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 15:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look at your links. Yes, I agree that paid editors should stay away from article text and should certainly not be reverting or removing maintenance tags. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So the editor should go begging to the tagger? Reverting the maintenance tag edit is an effortless procedure that informs automatically and an interested editor is unlikely to ignore. Especially when there is no discussion and nondescript edit summaries. It the tagger doesn't care enough to discuss, where there are interested editors, why should it sustain? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Go begging, or, even better, get lost. Such functions should be reserved for volunteer editors. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Montazur Rahman Akbar
make this article full film with good editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.35.168.6 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Does Age Exclude Notability?
A friend of mine submitted an entry for a company that has gotten significant national coverage (from NYT to hundreds of retailer locations in the US), but was denied an entry because (I quote): "Clearly too soon as the company was founded only this year and, regardless of any amount of news, this is still too soon at best and I would not resubmit any time soon". I don't see anything about age in the notability guidelines for companies -- in search of a second opinion before I advise him to resubmit, is this correct? NateSirrah (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability depends on whether there are enough independent sources that provide substantial discussion of the company. The person who left that message was simply being kind. A company that is not notable now may with time become notable - in other words, with time more independent sources with substantial discussion may appear. They accrue. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In earnest, at what relative point is that threshold crossed? When I say significant coverage I mean almost every industry authority in the vertical of this company has talked about it since late 2015. Is there any weight to the argument that one could produce many examples of less notable companies in the same space that do have their own entries? Friend was trying to submit because he has customers suggest a Wiki entry on the daily ^^ NateSirrah (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked a general question and I've given a general answer. If this is a draft I would be happy to look at it.  Hopefully it wasn't simply created and deleted, as then only admins can review it Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If a company was founded with a broad vision that got a lot of coverage, but has yet to produce any actual results, it is probably too soon to have an article on it; lots of companies get reported on their founding with the grand vision that they have that then fold and disappear quietly without any market impact, and we should not have articles on those types of companies. However, consider if any of the people like the CEO or founder are notable, and if they already are, a section in their existing article on the company while in its nascent form may make sense. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Mm, dissent here; as far as I know, ONEEVENT hasn't been stretched to cover every possible subject. Masem, Jytdog, if you want to change the GNG to add a time component, make that argument on the GNG's talk page and get consensus around your POV.  Otherwise, the provisions of the GNG are unambiguous: if a subject's received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, it meets the guideline's standards.  Having a "market impact" forms no part of that guideline.   Ravenswing   15:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the GNG requires enduring coverage of a topic (not indefinitely till the end of time, but more than just a few days worth of coverage). If a company's founding captures lots of media stories over a few days, and then no one ever speaks of the company, that fails notability. On the other hand, if a company's founding is well covered, and their progress comes up every once in a while in the news, then that's likely notable. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This particular company more than meets this qualification -- it has received sustained coverage for the past 6 months. I will email the three of you the draft page for review, I'm curious to know your perceptions! NateSirrah (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying. No one here is going to agree with you or  give a definitive answer without specifics.   If you have the article please post it in your userspace - I created a sandbox for you here: User:NateSirrah/sandbox. I am not interested in working privately. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's never my intent to privatize the conversation! I'm just not incredibly familiar with Wikipedia's tools. The sandbox works brilliantly -- I've updated it to reflect the draft and the entry. Thank you for your help. NateSirrah (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow they did awesome PR around their launch. Kudos to them.  I think the key notion here is WP:RECENTISM; we take things slow to avoid evaluation of notability being skewed by skillfully executed PR like this.  The goal of WP is to present the public with accepted knowledge.   We are a learning tool.  A lot of folks think we are some kind of essential step in getting your PR done but we aren't.  Once it is clear what kind of player Milk actually will be in the makeup world we'll be able to say something meaningful about them. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree to some extent to the RECENTISM issue - it looks like only 4 months since they opened? - but that said, I'm seeing a longer tail of news that I was expecting and across a wider variety of sources (particularly NYTimes and Vanity Fair). It is a border case, I think - too early to judge if its notable or non-notable. We'd normally recommend avoiding an article, but I also can't see the harm in having an article as long as its understood that we're looking for sources a bit farther out in time to establish notability far past its founding.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean that 1st NYT ref that is a passing mention - a brief report in the society pages about a great party they threw. That is PR not substantial discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fwiw I just pinged the Wikiproject fashion, here to get their thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, its more a passing mention, but I don't know if I would call it PR or not necessarily. (I'm going my own google news search independent of the sandbox list). To me, this still comes down to a case where I wouldn't have created the article just yet, but I wouldn't AFD it if it was created by someone else (that would be BITEY). It's state of notability is unclear. If the sourcing can't improve some months down the road, then that's a sign of likely no notability and deletion would be appropriate. I do think the draft space admin was right to say it's not yet ready. --M ASEM (t) 17:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey all -- now a couple months later, I wanted to re-kindle this discussion. While it looks like the brand has continued to push ahead on the PR front, both asides and negative press has been published about Milk in noteworthy publications. The company also seems to have launched another product line (coming from the makeup industry, the brand is in the back of many retailers' minds, but obviously that is empirical). I've updated my sandbox User:NateSirrah/sandbox -- how does the community now feel concerning notability? One might argue that @Masem's noted "longer tail of news" is now solidified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateSirrah (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Record labels
Do record labels need to meet this guideline to be notable? Ex. Carrot Top Records, which is currently at AFD, doesn't have much coverage in independent RSs, but it has released albums by multiple notable artists. Is having multiple such artists enough for a label to be notable? Everymorning (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should meet the guideline; just releasing notable records doesn't make the label notable (notability is not inherited). --M ASEM (t) 16:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. It should be sourced by reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. But seeing that "long" list of artists/bands: they should have their own articles to show notability or WP:RS-sources that they are signed/connected to the record label. So in an indirect way, the artists can provide sources for the label. The Banner talk 16:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Alpen Sport Resort Rote Wand
Hi there,

we are the leading agency for a big hotel in Lech, Austria. The hotel has an interesting history and is decorated with some noteworthy awards, so we’d like to create a wikipedia article for it. Since this is our first attempt to publish a wikipedia article, we are not 100% sure if all notability criterias are matched in a sufficient manner.

Main facts about the Alpen Sport Resort Rote Wand:

 * 3 toques by Gault Millau (http://at.gaultmillau.com/restaurant/rote-wand):
 * Award as the „most innovative restaurateur“ by Falstaffs Restaurant Guide (https://www.falstaff.at/restaurantguide2016/artikel/josef-joschi-walch-ist-innovativster-gastronom-12756.html#.VuljwIFSoGQ.facebook)
 * Introduction by Gault Millau (http://at.gaultmillau.com/news/am-gipfel-der-genusse-die-besten-restaurants-am-arlberg):

Would this be sufficient for an article?

We are looking forward to hearing from you!

Regards,

--Agentur bap (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, thank you for your courtesy in asking whether we thought your client passed muster; such a request isn't often the case. In any event, while we'll look ourselves, are you aware of any media publicity beyond reviews that discuss the hotel?  Articles in regional newspapers or the like?   Ravenswing   19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing our efforts :) In fact, the hotel is from time to time mentioned in regional and national newspapers and broadcasts. For example, there have been articles in Kurier, nachrichten.at, Cirque Gourmet, Vorarlberger Nachrichten and vol.at and videos in ORF and many more about the hotel and its distinct cuisine (famous for its Fondue). --Baschnegger Ammann Partner (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking over your sources, I'd say that was good enough to be going on with. Write up your article, and please feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you need any assistance or technical pointers.   Ravenswing   23:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking time! We will take up on your offer soon :) --Baschnegger Ammann Partner (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of banning startups?
I'm getting tired of AfDing articles on startups, written by people associated with those companies, which have nothing but press coverage of funding cycles and no product. These don't meet NCORP anyway, but seriously, I'd like to add some language to the guidelines that specifically prevents this kind of misuse of WP for promotional purposes. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We already do have plenty of language concerning the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and the various deletion avenues is the proper method to handle violators. There's no language we could possibly craft that would magically prevent paid writers from penning articles, and I'd be adamantly opposed to banning articles on startups; we have no business putting up prior-restraint roadblocks against subjects that might meet the GNG.   Ravenswing   08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you seen WP:SUSTAINED? But what you want is not a notability criteria...what you want is a WP:NOT guideline.  I agree that there is no good reason to allow articles on startups, even massively "notable" startups, as the worst that can happen is that their entry into the encyclopedia is delayed by "x" amount of time.  We have no deadline to rush these topics to print.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Startups would be very likely to be actively promoting, and without independent sourcing. People promoting startups would be very enthusiastic, probably unaware of what Wikipedia really is, and probably very receptive to the warning that attempts to promote on Wikipedia results in a short term burst, with lasting records, of deletion.  I wonder if it is worth attempting to get startup promotion creators to G7 their work?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, they are likely influenced by the fact that many non-notable startups have articles. Recent pages patrol is bad at spotting such spam, I wrote about it at WP:CORPSPAM. We need to be more vigilant in pruning this project from Yellow Page like entries. One of the biggest problems is that too many people accept "business as usual" entries ("the company is notable because here is a techcrunch article about it securing funding..." grrrr). Or the problem with niche trade publications I raised before, there are dozens of articles on startups related to bitcoins, all sustained by the fact that there are startups which do nothing but write and copy articles about business as usual in their field, but the proliferation of such articles confuses a lot of people, making them thing there is coverage. We need to address those problems - delete spam entries (a ton still remains, look at company-stub, it is a spam-triumphal stomping ground), tighten policies regarding business-as-usual coverage, and thus cut the lifeline many such spammy articles use to squeeze by. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed small change to RS
See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources to help raise the bar for N and articles generally. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

a note on events
I see a small bit of edit warring on the page regarding events. I think there's two forms of events here. There's news events (eg natural disasters, wars, etc.), and notability of those are covered under WP:NEVENT. On the other hand, there are planned promotional events (such as the recent CES show), which I would argue should be treated with the same considers as organizations and business. Often, but not always, there's a separate entity that is behind these types of events so the event and organization would overlap and fall under here. But there are significant events put on by organizations already notable for something else, so the event would have a separate page. Under that type of conditions I would expect the notability of the event to be judged similarly to any organization (re self-promotion concerns) to make sure it flies. But any addition should be clear that this is separate from news events. --M ASEM (t) 16:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

‎RfC on secondary school notability
Please see Village pump (policy). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Venture Capital funding and company notability
Let's add some clarification about venture capital funding and company notability to this guideline. Specifically these 5 points: Your thoughts? -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) A company receiving Venture capital (VC) funding is a significant event, it is NOT a Run-of-the-mill event
 * 2) Each VC funding round is a unique event (Seed funding, Start-up, Series A round, Second-round Working capital, and Mezzanine financing)
 * 3) At least 1 independent, reliable source that discusses the VC funding round is required for verification
 * 4) When multiple independent reliable sources cover a VC funding round, those sources should be considered as a group when discussing notability
 * 5) A company is generally NOT notable if the ONLY significant coverage about the company is ONLY about the initial (seed) funding round
 * About a couple of years ago I interned at a startup (6 employees excluding me) where I was asked to handle the media relations along with technical work. Part of my job was to publicise the company's funding and product. Every 2 weeks I wrote a master press release, then tweaked it and created 5-6 different "newsy" versions written from a journalist's viewpoint. Then, through social media, I contacted freelance writers associated with a bunch of "tech/entrepreneurship news" related websites and asked them to publish it. I explicitly mentioned that I was giving up the copyright and they could publish it under their own name, as long as they did not modify the content (win-win situation for both of us). If I remember correctly, close to 90% of my submissions were published (none of which were edited in any form). I would contact different freelance writers every week and at the end of 3 months, I had even managed to get some stuff published in a couple of well-known American tech-blogs. Most of my rejections btw were from the local Singaporean/Malaysian mainstream media (possibly because the journalists were full time employees and did not want to entertain my request). However, with the help of a friend who was an intern at that time, I did manage to get a brief product description published in a related "list" article. Now fast forward a year later, I noticed that the startup had a Wikipedia article and every single source used (including the one in the mainstream media) was something I had submitted. I learnt later that another intern had been tasked with creating that Wikipedia article. It still exists today and only I know that none of the references is an independent source. Since this experience, I no longer trust these techblogs/venture news websites as "independent sources" any more. They will publish literally anything as long as it is redressed a bit and is not copied word to word from an existing press release. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This anecdote is unverifiable. Notice that the claim that the sources are not independent is misleading, as rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Give yourself more credit, obviously you're a highly skilled, multifacted and convincing writer :)  Of course discussion concerning if an individual source is reliable or not should go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.   Let's fast forward and assume there is an agreement on what sources are, and are not, reliable.   Given that assumption, would the above 5 points be reasonable to you?  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Any one have suggestions on appropriate places to ping to see if folks want to discuss this addition to the guideline? Consensus by silence isn't the best option.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WT:N, WT:NPP, WT:AFC, WT:WikiProject Companies would be four. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Run of the mill - venture capitalists give out venture capital; it's what they do. The mere fact that they have done so does not constitute an event of encyclopedic note. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC - Are publishing companies who publish notable works automatically notable?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm participating in an AfD for a publishing company right now and there are several keep votes that are based around the company being notable for publishing notable works. Right now, WP:CORP says no such thing. My belief is that while authors can be notable for their works per WP:AUTHOR, the publishing company should not have that notability. They didn't research the work or write the work. The company merely published the work. WP:CORP should be changed if I'm wrong. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes The chief thing that lends enduring notability to a publisher is publishing notable work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No This is an example of inherited notability (the notability of several works imparting notability to the publisher), which we don't allow. There may be a rational to develop a notability criteria that based on the number and volume of works published might lead to meeting the GNG in the future, but that's going to be very limited, and definitely not automatic. --M ASEM (t) 21:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - If there are independent sources that make note of how the company publishes note worthy works, then the publisher is notable for doing so... but if no sources take note of that fact, then no, the company is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is posed as an abstract question without context, and as such, any answer can be of only limited use. Having said that, to the question as presented, I'd respond that there are probably no "automatic" passes of notability for publishing companies; however, if you are confronted with a publisher that has produced lots of notable books, that's a reasonable indicator of potential notability that warrants careful further investigation for reliable sources that can support the inclusion of substantive  content about the publisher's history, positions, awards, etc.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Clear WP:NOTINHERITED. It should only be "automatically" notable if it more or less invariably indicates there will be significant coverage of the publisher in reliable sources independent of the subject. (i.e. as usual, "does X make Y automatically notable" means "is X a sufficient assurance that the subject will have received such coverage as outlined in WP:N"). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No: - of course not. Notability is just not inherited, period, end of statement.  (That being said, where's this AfD?)   Ravenswing   09:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't include the AfD because I didn't want people to think I was canvassing. SL93 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No: Clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED, and the whole principle of WP:VERIF. Wikipedia requires sources, to a) be accurate, and b) prevent hoaxes. Allowing this would allow many WP:MILL publishers. Nothing should be automatically notable. Period. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly not: as has been said, this WP:NOTINHERITED. If a publisher is alleged to be notable, it must be notable in and of itself; just as a book can be notable without the author being automatically deemed notable. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC) (veteran of almost forty years in the book trade)
 * Yes Of course they are. 'Inherited' is a directional value: books do not inherit notability from their publishing house, but having published multiple notable works is, in fact, what makes a publishing house notable. Consider the alternative: Vanity Press XYZ has a scandal, and receives a lot of press about the scandal, but has never published a notable book.  Regular publisher ABC has published 30-40 notable books, but itself receives no particular press.  If you think ABC should not have an article but XYZ should, please explain yourself in terms of encyclopedic value. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: Easy. "Encyclopedic value" is a shibboleth much beloved of those who, fundamentally, dislike that notability flows from WP:V instead of from their own perceptions of "It's important."  The current Village Pump discussion in which many people decry that there are so many more articles written about athletes than about academics is part and parcel.  Unfortunately for their POV, notability criteria aren't based on "It's important," but upon the precept that the world has heard of the subject.  Is it a crying shame that our culture values athletes and entertainers more than it does academics?  Arguably, but the fact of the matter is that the likes of Khloe Kardashian and Aaron Hernandez has received more press, and enjoy more name recognition, than every 2015 Nobel Prize laureate combined.  The moment you change that paradigm, Wikipedia ceases to be governed by rules and guidelines, and starts to be governed by opinions alone.  Want to bet, for instance, that there aren't a lot more editors who'd think that the third-string keeper for Leicester City or a minor actress who doffed her duds for a couple of Game of Thrones scenes are highly notable and that no publishing house is noteworthy at all than the converse?   Ravenswing   09:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have made a total misstatement or misrepresentation of the discussion at VPP, the problem with those athlete articles that are being objected to, is that the sources for their biography do not exist - and those who would keep them violate N/V/NPOV/OR and BLP by asking the everyone to pretend they do. It is your argument there that seeks to have us be governed by opinion, instead of by sources and policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting spin on it, when the sentiments expressed by many (in a discussion titled "The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive") are not that the GNG is insufficiently applied, but that the standards are too loose. In any event, you've just as much right to blather as any.   Ravenswing   17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regular publisher ABC has published 30-40 notable books, but itself receives no particular press. - Putting aside the quasi-technical question of whether it's notable for a moment, how do we write a good encyclopedia article about something that has received no particular press and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Any argument that something is notable irrespective of the standard "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" has to be sacrificing at least one of those elements (it has insignificant coverage, the coverage is in unreliable sources, or the sources are not independent of the subject). How does that reconcile with other core content policies? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We write such an article by including the basic organizational data, and a list of the books that are the most famous. There is implied notability here. The rule about inherited notability is about notability that would flow downwards, as inheritance normally does. It means that no matter how important the publisher, it does not inherently make the book notable. If it did, and this were extended more generally,  the results would be utterly absurd, because it would be enough for notability to have gone to a notable college. But it does work the other way--a college with a great many notable alumni is likely to be notable. In the old days, when we were so foolish as to debate the notability of high schools and elementary schools, the key argument that a   school was notable was in fact that it had notable alumni, and this was accepted even by the school minimalists. For a publisher, we'd have to judge the actual record. I wouldn't extend to to merely publishing a few notable books, because then almost any publisher would be notable  . But some publishers do publish a great percentage of the notable books in a field. Notability is a guideline, and we van make whatever individual or general exceptions have consensus. WP content is not governed by firm rules , neither those that are given to us, or even that we make ourselves, because the most basic of all rules is WP:IAR, whatever will improve the encyclopedia.
 * The argument about relative coverage given above actually proves the opposite of what it was used for. Very true, popular movie stars get more coverage than scientists. If we went entirely by coverage, even the most trivial actor or socialite or athlete would get an article, and almost no scientists. But we don't do that, because we do take into account importance. We deal with people getting undue publicity by considering a great many sources on them trivial or unreliable; we deal with athletes by having a special rule about levels of competition and full-time professionalism, we deal with academics by having a different rule altogether, independently of the GNG. We deal with scientific journals similarly, with a special rule about indexing. (I should mention that the argument about WP:V makes no sense in this area--it is trivial to prove a publisher published a book.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Inheritance of notability is not considered only in a downward flow, it's from any connection. An employee for a notable business is not automatically notable, but a business is also not automatically notable if its CEO is notable. The only arguement that at some point makes sense (and one that I'm not 100% sure about,, either) is that if you have a "parent" organization/person that is intimately involved in the production or creation of many numerous notable products, there may be reason to create an article on the parent if only to help improve wiki-linkability. But what is critical here is the "intimately involved" aspect. I would not consider a book publisher as "intimately involved" with an author's work, even though they publish it and they often have editorial control; it's simply that they don't often impact the creative direction of the work. In contrast, (from the area I work in), I know there are a lot of video game development studios that have no notability on their own, but the games they have programmed are numerous and readily notable. To that end, there might be a reasonable case to make at least a landing page for the studio. But I'd still be very careful about this being an "automatic" case. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To argue that WP:NOTINHERITED requires "downward" inheritance seems contrary to the spirit of that guideline (and others). Ultimately, if your definition of notability includes articles limited to We write such an article by including the basic organizational data, and a list of the books that are the most famous. - then notability isn't doing its job. Thankfully, that's not notability. The problem is editors simply deciding that subject X is notable because it's one sort of subject and category Y is not notable because it's this other subject. That's well and good when there's established broad consensus for that, but otherwise it needs to be based on sources rather than asking everybody else to take their word for it that there are probably sources. A publisher of notable books has published notable books. Perhaps there's a list article in order based just on that fact. Beyond that, we're not a database or catalog. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No. There's no such thing as automatic notability; NOTINHERITED should be enough to resolve this. GNG works just fine, we need less exceptions to it, not more. James (talk/contribs) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: just as an academic journal (as explained above), there are other ways to establish notability other than other publications talking about it. An article may exist, although it will probably remain very short as not much verifiable information can be found on it, and just some neutral facts can be taken from the entity subject of the article. (talk) user:Al83tito 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the case of publishing companies, I think it is incredibly important for the public to have at least some basic information in Wikipedia that sheds some light on which companies are behind publishing which important publications.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * additional comment: Wikipedia fundamentally relies in published secondary sources (with some exceptions). It is at the core of how it is constructed. How ironic then, when publishing companies of some of those sources may remain hidden from the public eye, because some Wikipedia editors deem their notability not proven. I think that when multiple published works of a publisher become notable, so should the publisher be deemed notable and include at least the most basic coverage of it in an article. The need to extend coverage to the publisher is compounded when we also ask of the sources to be authoritative and reliable. (talk) user:Al83tito 06:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Sigh. This is one of those cases - if there are no sources about a company, but it does something interesting, is it enough? If a publishing house (company) has no sources about itself, except we can verify that it exists and it publishes some works, is it notable? I am sorry, I don't see why. If you cannot find a single source saying it is important, discussing its history/significance, than I'd say no, it is not. Publishing books, or making cars, or coffee - it doesn't count. It is not what they do, it is whether what they do is important enough for others to write about them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. How can an article be written that has no original research if sources can't even be found to establish notability. If there are no source, there can be no inclusion. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but the statement in a reliable source identifying the publisher as the publisher of a notable work is itself a point of notability. If the company publisher 30-40 notable works and somehow no reliable source identifies it as the publisher of those works, then it would have a problem. As soon as sources start identifying it as the publisher of those works, well then it is in sources. bd2412  T 04:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really; being mentioned as a publisher of a notable work is not "significant coverage" per WP:N. --M ASEM (t) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the work, which is a work of that publishing house, receives "significant coverage" than the coverage is just as much about the publisher as the coverage of a new kind of McDonald's hamburger is about McDonald's, or the coverage of a new iPhone is about Apple. bd2412  T 11:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does the author fit into this analogy? Wouldn't the author be McDonald's? Seems like you'd need to go one more step removed to liken it to the kind of coverage the burger/book would get. Articles about books almost never talk about the publisher except as a brief mention; they do often talk about the author. Articles about a Burger King hamburger almost never talk about Restaurant Brands International, but they do sometimes talk about Burger King. Is coverage of the burger also just as much coverage of the farm who raised the cows, the advertising company who came up with the marketing, etc.? This is the whole point of WP:NOTINHERITED -- coverage of X can establish the notability of X, and not -- if it doesn't actually talk about them -- X's author, mother, uncle, publisher, owner, record label, home town, alma mater, agent, business partner, etc. When someone writes notable books or publishes notable books it's an indication there's very likely sources about them, but it does still have to be coverage of that subject -- doesn't even have to be the subject of the publications, of course, but it doesn't have to provide "significant coverage" of this subject, not related subjects. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The relationship between a publisher and a book is a bit less direct compared to the McD/food or Apple/product relationships. What you are suggesting may make more sense to attribute notability to the author of several notable books since they have a much more direct hand in the creation of it, compared to a publisher who while essential for actually getting the book to audiences, are far less important to the creative process. Hence this type of inference does not work for publishers/books. --M ASEM (t) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Rhododendrites and Masem, the "author" of a new McDonald's hamburger is probably a marketing person who came up with the idea of launching a new product. The "author" of the next iPhone is probably actually some committee of technical and marketing people. I have no problem granting that the author of a novel is more notable within the scheme of things than the marketing people who come up with the new product name, configuration, and packaging. However, we can at the same time recognize that publishers have significant input into both the content and the marketing of the books they publish. The decisions made by the publisher may be the ones that determine whether the book ever becomes notable. bd2412  T 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example of why notability of the work is not inherited by the publishing house... let's say I buy a printing press, which I set up in my garage, and start "Blueboar Publishing Co." I publish Shakespeare's plays, and Milton's "Paradise Lost".  These works are very notable... however "Blueboar Publishing Co" does not inherit the notability of these works... It is still a one man operation, operating out of a garage.  Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point. If a publisher is only reprinting previously published material, then it has played no role in the origination of this material. However, if Bloomsbury Publishing had received no other press coverage beyond being noted as the publisher of the Harry Potter novels, it is hard to see how that would be insufficient. It is a given that the publisher plays a substantial role in shaping and marketing the product. bd2412  T 15:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, clearly. WP:NOTINHERITED covers this specifically: "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable."  The significant coverage in independent sources determines notability: nothing more, nothing less. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old VPP decision regarding GNG and subject-specific guidelines
Hello. The discussion about subject-specific guidelines and WP:GNG was closed one month ago and is archived into Village pump (policy)/Archive 135. There, it says that GNG is neither replaced nor superseded by any subject-specific notability guideline. While the discussion was mainly about WP:NSPORTS itself, the closing decision may affect various subject-specific guidelines. Feel free to read further. --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This SNG already points to GNG... so the RfC close is not a problem. Blueboar (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline's alternative criteria for specific ones says otherwise, Blueboar: either GNG, the guideline's primary criteria, or any one of alternative criteria. --George Ho (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither the GNG nor the SNGs limit the ability of the community at AfD to make decisions. The guidelines are predictive. They describe rebuttable presumptions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't see an issue with this. The top of "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" (the SNG part) is clear that the GNG is still available, and all of the criteria here are aimed at showcasing secondary sources, a key facet of notability. It works as it is supposed to given the relationship between GNG and SNGs. The only thing I think is missing is the focus on the word "presumption" to be clear that these are not guarantees of notability/inclusion and can be challenged. --M ASEM (t) 13:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion-sorting:Companies
While the above discussion is on-going, I'd like to invite editors to participate in the AfDs listed on the page linked above. There are currently close to 90 discussion open; they could use more input. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it is hard to get enthusiastic about such a thing. I mean, I looked at your list and the first one I went to was Biocom, which was, yes, written with some fairly shameless promotional text.  But it's a genuine entity with GNG sourcing and there's already a whole pack of Delete votes for some reason.  Meanwhile the article was trimmed down to next to nothing, which does make it less promotional but also makes it less clear what the entity does.  I can't find a motive for me to delete, and it's not worth the effort for me to put in a futile keep vote either.  The deletionists here are basically complaining that it's too much work for them to delete stuff like that and they need to be able to do it faster and easier ... at which point they'll be out looking for something else to delete, maybe species or landmarks in Asia we "don't need to know about".  So the way I see it, if their deletion arguments are hard work, it doesn't bother me, but for me to join that in some futile effort to salvage the dregs of promotional but not useless articles about little known companies would be too frustrating.  And so I continue to sit out. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing articles based on press releases
Under Independence of sources, I'd like to add a new bullet point:


 * Any material which is substantially based on a press release.

What often happens is a small company puts out a press release, all the media which cover that industry sector pick up the press release and write articles which are largely just re-wordings of what was in the release, i.e. churnalism. Then, people write wikipedia articles about those companies and cite those articles to demonstrate notability. My contention is that if all you're doing is rehashing a press release, that's not independent. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm definitely involved in the discussion that started this, but I'd say that this probably has to be treated similarly to a published interview. The information in the interview needs to be viewed carefully, since it comes from a non-independent source, but that doesn't prevent the publication choosing to do an interview as a contributing factor to notability. That is, at some point, an editorial decision was made based on the perceived importance of the subject to the readers of the publication. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have a definite problem with such articles. This is one of them.
 * There is scope for articles "substantially" based on press releases, provided that there is also adequate secondary sourcing. Wording should reflect this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not ban citing articles based on press releases (or even citing the releases themselves) if the goal is to establish WP:V for some fact stated in the wikipedia article. My objection is to using these sources to establish WP:N.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The existing text that introduces the list specifies that this applies to, Sources used to support a claim of notability. The implication there is that you can still cite these kinds of sources, for reasons other than supporting notability.  I think (but am not sure) this addresses your concern.  Please let me know if not, and we can work on some better wording.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is correct Roy. There's a difference between distinguishing sources for the purposes of establishing notability versus using information to include in an article (whether from a company source or a secondary source). There is much confusion in this regard as evidenced in most AfD discussions. -- HighKing ++ 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Already excluded by WP:N as counting towards notability via WP:SPIP, updating WP:ORG to make clearer the existing guideline is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I read SPIP but don't see that what you have said is there. Unscintillating (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From SPIP


 * Press release based sources clearly fall in here: they are not works independent of the subject taken up without influence of the subject. They are distributed as a form of self-promotion by the subject,, and SPIP is clear that just because such sources are used in reliable sourcing does not mean that it is evidence of notability.TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you said "clearly", this discussion thread has quickly derailed into an argument. Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is something of a WP:Perennial proposals. For example, the Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio closing stated, "I consider the primary argument around the definition of 'independent source' to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean by 'independent of the article subject'."  Independence is a matter of journalist ethics, not propinquity.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TIL a new word: Propinquity. Thank you.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That was a discussion about a biography of a member of the LDS Church involving affiliated sourcing, not a corporation involving press releases. As Iri pointed out, we've always held significant figures in major religions notable, and the RS question there deals with verifiability more than notability because the only sources that tend to write about significant religious figures below the pope/cardinal level and their equivalents tend to be religious press. That's a completely different situation than a company that is trying to sell you a produncr through press releases. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue of significant figures in major religions is off topic...the relevant element is independence in journalistic ethics. This discussion continued to a DRV and the RSN.  Those discussions didn't want to assert that Deseret News was unethical.  My last comment at the RSN was, "If they are not unethical, then they practice independence in their journalism ethics." link  Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Iri's close was based on our practice regarding biographies of religious figures: not about our practices in regards to corporate press releases being reprinted. SPIP and N as a whole make it clear that what we require for reliable sources to count towards notability is intellectual independence without the subject influencing the coverage. Coverage based on sources from the LDS Church are still independent of the subject: he's a member but the organization is much larger than him and will generally be independent intellectually. This is not the case for press release based coverage released by companies about themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The same principle applies. If an editor can't provide reliably sourced evidence that a publisher is unethical in their journalistic ethics, it is Wikipedia the editor brings into disrepute by arguing that a publisher is not independent.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a novel interpretation of normal practice and is also flawed. A "reliable" source will maintain their "ethics" and "reliability" by accurately printing, word for word, quotations from company personnel and an interpretation (but no analysis or "independent" opinion) of a company announcement or press release. The AfD is clogged with editors listing mentions of the company in "reliable sources" without checking that the article itself is intellectually independent and is not relying almost exclusively on company PR and/or quotations. The onus should always be on the editor who is relying on a particular source to show that it meets the requirements. -- HighKing ++ 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since notability is a measure of the attention given a topic, the author of an article based on a press release has given less attention to the topic than a field reporter writing the same report. Unscintillating (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * [WT:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems#Canadian Biomass is independent national media for the biomass industry] provides analysis of a specific example. It concluded, "Comparing these [press release] versions with the Canadian Biomass news report shows that Canadian Biomass retains independent editorial control."  Unscintillating (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Good example to assist with this debate. Clearly, this Press Release is the basis of this article. It is exactly the type of article that we want to clarify should *not* be included in the criteria for establishing notability. Adding in a description of the company at the start of the article (which doesn't appear in the original press release) or even rewording some of the text within a press release does not qualify that article as "intellectually independent" since there is no independent facts/data or opinion offered. -- HighKing ++ 18:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RoySmith's proposal. The clarification would be helpful when evaluating sources for articles that come up at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be useful to distinguish what sort of information is being sourced on such a basis. If we are referencing an article to establish the date a company was founded or the name of its CEO, I don't see a problem. It would, however, be problematic to cite such a source for qualities or characteristics of the company's products. bd2412  T 13:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction lies in reliable for the purposes of verification vs. reliable and independent for the purposes on notability. A press release can be the former, but on its own is never the latter. Sources serviced from then in their entirety generally follow the same rules in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the concern here but to make this condition applicable in practice, guidance is needed over how we are supposed to tell? It goes on already – keepers say "it's in a major newspaper, it's independent coverage!" and deleters cry "not independent, press release!" How can it be decided whether a given report was based on a company press release, how closely and how much editorial review took place? Do we rely merely on the wording of the report? If it looks opinionated, doesn't it happen that independent commentators form a well-founded opinion of their own? <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  13:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's usually pretty easy to tell if an article is based on a press release. Find some pity quote in the article and google it.  This will usually lead you the press release on the company's own site.  Check the dates.  If the date of the article is the same as the date of the press release (perhaps plus or minus a few days), and the basic information covered is the same in both, and you can find multiple other publications which cover the same industry segment having similar articles on the same date, that's a pretty good guess it's all just responses to a press release.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Just new to this discussion now. I absolutely support this proposal. While it is already clear from WP:ORGIND that material (including press releases) produced by the company is excluded for the purposes of establishing notability, it is less clear when a "reliable source" regurgitates a press release. Introducing the "substantially based" condition would go a long way towards a necessary and wanted clarification. -- HighKing ++ 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per my arguments above: this is already existing in the main notability guidline (WP:N/TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, consider a typical article from the WSJ or FT which might start with a statement along the lines of "Today the company announced XYZ" and go on to describe what the announcement was about and even include some soundbites from the CEO in relation to the announcement. Do you believe SPIP excludes that reference for the purposes of establishing notability? Arguably, it does not. The source (ie The Publisher/Journalist) is independent of the topic and meets the criteria for reliable secondary sources. The criteria of have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own is difficult to interpret in this context but it could be argued that by not producing a word-for-word copy of the original press release, this condition is met. I believe the new wording is required to further clarify that articles *based* on press releases and other company announcements should not be considered for the purposes of establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interviews/quotes and material of that type from a quality source such as the ones you mentioned would likely already be addressed by N as primary sources or primary source-based documents. AfD already routinely excludes such sourcing from being considered towards notability as primary or as non-independent. Those from your TechCrunches/local business journals, etc. would be more in the line of SPIP. I'm in favour of this addition as it would bring CORPDEPTH more in line with the prevailing way of interpreting N at AfDs currently. I just want to be clear that if CORPDEPTH is not updated, that these principles already exist in the larger notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with that interpretation but I often end up in debates with editors that disagree. Explicit clarification is required to avoid pointless debates in the future. -- HighKing ++ 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * support. This is not difficult to interpret - churnalism sticks out like a sore thumb from legitimately independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Question How does the result of the poll here result in changing the guideline? Does the poll need to be "open" for a particular period of time? Who makes the change or what is the process for adopting and results here? Thank you. -- HighKing ++ 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an informal discussion which is how things often start. If there were significant opposition it would probably need to go an RfC but i don't see the need. GNG already emphasizes the need for independent sources so this is really just underlining that and this is what folks here have written. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support proposal and agree with User:Jytdog, so I just went ahead and added it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)