Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase

Discussion
can you justify your most recent revert? I'd like to know in what ways you feel its an improvement. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a note about it on your talkpage. Let's discuss what changes you think should be made here.  FalconK (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, lets start with the first one and we can get through all nine... is pretty well explained by the edit summary "this part is just not true, sources that "show the company is in business, or making products or money" can indeed contribute to reliability if they're in-depth, "impacted the historical record" is nice bit its not part of our WP:NOTABILITY requirements.)" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. This is an explicit statement of why exactly WP:ORGCRIT came into being.  This statement is a summary of the "Examples of substantial coverage" section of that policy; the things listed all relate to broad public concern about the company that will generally endure past the company's winding down.  So the examples are a discussion of a "prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger", not for example simple reportage of the merger, nor a long interview with the executives of the merging companies describing how awesome their business deal is for everyone.  A scholarly article is used because if the company is the subject of detailed case studies then it's relevant to the academic record probably forever.  A detailed report on product safety means that the company produced a product whose safety impacted people, which generally we care about past the company's end of business.  An independent guide about the product (not one the company commissioned or that gets revenue from affiliate sales, but an actually independent guide) means the article will be useful after the company's no longer around to say what the product was.  The essential difference between the type of coverage used as examples of substance in WP:ORGCRIT and the type that isn't adequate is that the latter is ephemera, which is why we're talking about long timeframes.  FalconK (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you get from there to "Sources that establish the company's notability are not ones that show the company is in business, or making products or money. They are ones that show the company has impacted the historical record in a way that someone might find meaningful a hundred years after the company winds down."? WP:ORGCRIT seems to directly contradict the first sentence, something like "Sources that establish the company's notability aren't just ones..." would work but thats a completely different statement. Almost invariably in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources will show that a company is in business, or making products or money yet those are the only sources which can establish a company's notability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aah, I see where the contention here is. The point of this part is to describe that a source which does not go beyond pointing out that a company is in business doing the kinds of things one would expect a company of its type to do will not establish notability, and that we look to company articles to tell us things that matter outside the context of business and finance.  It's not the intention to disqualify sources that mention a company is in business but also provide in-depth coverage consistent with WP:CORPDEPTH.  Could we write it like this?
 * "The sources needed to show notability are not the ones just showing the company is in business, or making products or money. They are the ones that show the company has impacted the historical record in a way that will have enduring relevance and interest even after the company winds down."  FalconK (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "Sources which can be used to indicate notability go beyond simply showing that the company is in business, or making products or money. They demonstrate a lasting impact which will remain relevant even after the company winds down." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good way to convey the point. Go ahead and make the edit so you get credit for it.  FalconK (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok on to the next one! "Money sitting in this bank vault has a very limited impact on world history until it's used for something." is interesting but feels like a side point because "impact on world history" is not part of our notability policy. Beyond the purely philosophical I'm not sure its true, money that sits in bank vaults can have an immense impact on world history without being used... Just its existence can be impactful, especially if we're talking about a state treasury. On the technical level Money sitting in a bank vault *is* currently being used for something, its being used as a store of value. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The illustration is meant to be illustrative, not normative, but it's there to address articles about passive holding companies that have huge sums of money under management but virtually no press beyond routine announcements. Someone invariably comes to AfD to say something like "this holding company has 100 billion dollars, so they're important and this should be kept", which is incorrect.  FalconK (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)