Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 4

message: Over in the AFD for the York School, there's a discussion about the validity of using directory entries to establish notability. My essential argument is that directories typically either include everything they can, or charge a fee, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it can be assumed to be one or the other; given that, they aren't really a good source for establishing notability.
I don't mind speaking in general or in this specific case, but could anyone weigh in and/or give some guidance to applying policy in this sort of situation? SamBC 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Directories are primary sources and are not secondary sources.  They are primary because they are co-temporary with the subject and simply repeat facts.  To be secondary, they would have to make comment, analysis, criticism, provide alternative perspectives or otherwise transform the information.  As directories are generally primary sources, they do not generally demonstrate wikipedia’s threshold of notability.  Where a directory provides information on the basis of a fee paid, it cannot be considered independent and so for this reason additionally it does not demonstrate notability.  --SmokeyJoe 06:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directories 

message: What is the status of a company that is the developer, producer, and/or distributor of multiple notable products, but does not itself meet WP:CORP's primary criterion? Such companies may attract multiple incoming wikilinks and may be common search terms due to their association with notable products, but they don't have a clear redirect target. Possible ways to handle these companies that occured to me:
* leave as redlinks until such time as the company meets the primary criterion
* create a place-holder stub with a  tag
* remove redlinks
How do other editors suggest dealing with this sort of company? --Muchness 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often possible to merge the products as sections into an article for he company, with redirects to those sections. But have you some example in mind? DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove redlinks.  As such companies are not in themselves sufficiently notable, they should not ordinarily have their own articles.  --SmokeyJoe 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a situation where Notability gets in the way. If the product articles are short, it may make editorial sense to merge them all with the company. But if the articles are long, or more specifically if they are of widely varying length, or are separately merged with related products, then it may make sense to keep the product articles separate from the company. In this case, the article on the company that makes the products should be separate as well, to avoid duplication of the information in each individual article, regardless of what Notability says. Dhaluza 10:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I too would love to hear the specific example or examples.  I think a case-by-case approach is superior to a hard and fast rule.  UnitedStatesian 13:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me too.  This seems like and obscure problem.  Can we get some examples?  Frequently the inability to establish notability is due to incomplete research, not poor guidelines. --Kevin Murray 17:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific example that inspired this question was Red Ant Enterprises, a stub I created to fill a redlink that was subsequently (and justifiably, in my opinion) tagged for notability. Red Ant is the sole distributor of a large number of notable games in the Australia and New Zealand markets and is mentioned fairly frequently in gaming-related media () but has not been the subject of any independent articles that I can locate. While looking for sources to substantiate the company's notability, it occured to me that this situation may not be unique, and I thought I'd get some input from other editors before listing the article at AFD. --Muchness 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If the article were to be expanded to contain brief sections for their products, it might show notability very well. DGG (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Ant Enterprises looks like it is just a distributor.  It does not make products, let alone notable products.  Why is it the “sole distributor”?  Is that a claim of notability?  Is it part of an international network connected to the creator of the notable products?  In the articles about the individual notable products, is it normal to list distributors for individual countries?  Is there any conceivable reason for a reader to follow a link from a game to this distributor except to use the services of the company.  If not, then it is spam and the redlink should be deleted.  --SmokeyJoe 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Companies associated with multiple notable products

message: Can two minor press release republications in mid-size media count as notability verifiers, like here eComXpo? If they do, then WP:CORP is dead. If any company who gets two articles is notable, there is no reason to have this special section: WP:N would do. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that that article has references beyond re-published press releases. I haven't reviewed every single one, but the variety of titles seems to make it unlikely that they're all press releases. SamBC(talk) 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are press releases, then such sources specifically don't count towards establishing notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes clearly excluded. --Kevin Murray 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: except to the extent that their republication in truly responsible RSs might verify them. The chicago Tribune and the Washington Post may partially base their info on press releases,but they do not rely on them. The other sources in that article however, are useless for showing notability. DGG (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is the community insisting on keeping the article? I have been accused of tendentious editing in the DRV for insisting this article doesn't meet verifiable notability per WP:CORP. I take the accusation seriously, however, I do not feel I am being tendentious but defending policy. The article also has a lot of un-sourced material.  I have seen companies with more sources get deleted, and the editor admitted to COI (even thought he denies that there is COI if he is unpaid). I am confused, and this is why I ask. I am looking for arguments as to why I should stop trying to remove what I feel is spam. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Spurious accusations of "tendentious editing" are far from uncommon, you should probably just ignore that. The simple answer to your question is that guidelines have exceptions, and apparently the community has decided that this is one. >Radiant< 11:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why the personal attack that is un-called for? I haven't mis-represented anything: I am asking why the community doesn't consider eComXpo spam. I am trying to make sense of why is that the result not seem to fit policy. What do I misrepresent? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are many more citations at that article than you claim.  It's been through AfD and you are being defeated now at the deletion review.  Your initial statement above is pure crap and I resent having to spend the time to research through this to discover your deception.  The truth is only a personal attack to a flawed personality. --Kevin Murray 04:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even in the initial version, the one that included the press releases, there are exactly two sources that are reliable sources, and only one is directly related to the company. The other are from non-notable "industry portals", and a Microsoft blog. The sources are there, and you haven't done any research or are being disingenuous. I ask you to please apologize for your ongoing personal attacks and incivility. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope!  This conversation is over.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 14:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you launch a bunch of personal attacks, unfounded accusations and then want to slip out like that? Talk about flawed personalites... Thanks!--Cerejota 15:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CORP is dead? 

message: The text of WP:CORP deals with companies as well as their products and services. However, as a user has pointed out to me here, this is not reflected in the introductory sentence. I propose to change it to:
: The following is a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its offerings, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article.
Any objections? --B. Wolterding 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products and services, again 

message: I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has been closed, I'm removing the Merge tag. --Elonka 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Are there any specific guidelines for notability for shopping centres outside of those of WP:CORP)?  For Afds, I often based it on size, nb of stores and sometimes the popularity or special aspects of it? I had seen sometimes in some discussions that size doesn't give immediate notability,, or that 50-100 or more stores makes it immediately notable.--JForget  18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the general WP:N.  You might check with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture, since there are folks there who are focused on the buildings-aspect. --Lquilter (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shopping Centres guidelines outside of [[WP:CORP]]?

message: The intro statement "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose" makes this guidleline conflict with other guidelines that cover more narrow topics, such as WP:BAND. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the exception to the text. UnitedStatesian 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope terminology too broad 

message: Forgive me if this has been brought up before. Since companies are organizations, why are they both mentioned in the title? Seems to me like this should be renamed to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), where part of the content was before the merge, to avoid redundancy. Picaroon (t) 02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, your thought expresses my original preference when we began the merger or CORP and ORG, but it seems that the word "organization" brings to mind not-for-profit, charities, etc. and many editors thought that this title would add clarity.  I think that it is a minor redundancy to a worthy purpose. --Kevin Murray 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Kevin Murray -- there's nothing wrong with a minor redundancy that adds clarity so that people understand this guideline applies to all manner of orgs. --Lquilter (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I noticed an explosion of references to iTunes store.
Lot of album or single pages now state: "This album is available in iTunes mediastore" or something like that (example; example; example; example).
Others are clearly and simply built around iTunes references (example).
Thought of course I didn't make a full research, it looks like nothing less than a media manipulation. Just image if on every alimentary product page there would a reference like "you can find meat on your local Wal-Mart store" or "you can buy marshmallows on every Wal-Mart retailer".
The fact an album was released on iTunes a certain day is not relevant per se, and anyway it could be said as "released on internet that day". Besides, what if someone would write on every song page "you can download it for free on the well know p2p client eMule"? So, I suggest to establish a policy against such notes, who are simply promotional.  82.226.217.121 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agrere with your position that such phrases are non-encyclopedic and should be removed to improve each article where they are found. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes 

message: I don't know if it's what was intended, but, having been through this AfD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogads - it appears that thousands of companies will be classed as notable and therefore eligible for inclusion. Speaking for the UK, just about every company listed on the stock exchange and the major unlisted companies, some 2,000, will at some time have had a couple of articles written about them in national newspapers, giving sufficient depth of coverage. Multiply that for all the other English speaking countries covered by English WP and I imagine that you'll be approaching 20,000 potential articles. Reasonable ? -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 13:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable? Yes, there are over 200,000 biographies of people, and honestly is 20,000 business articles that many compared to 2.5 million articles? If a company (or person, or organization, or website) is mentioned in a national newspaper, then society found them worthy of note. If society finds them worthy of note, then Wikipedia does too. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I think it will be notable too. Think of all the ways that companies & businesses affect our lives: They employ individuals who are notable; local or regional businesses may have a significant impact on that economy by employing many people, or engaging in business practices that affect many people; (for that matter, national/intl businesses may have significant impacts on global economy). It's not that every single thing written in a newspaper confers instant notability; as WP:N states, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability". But ongoing news coverage of a company over time certainly indicates notability. We have to be extra-rigorous about policing the guidelines because virtually all companies have an obvious interest in promoting their name recognition & products, but the guidelines still apply. --Lquilter (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a much neglected area of WP. But a great deal of what is written is trivial PR coverage. X opened a new store, or appointed a new executive--with nothing much further. Local newspapers print it as a matter of record, but it is really just like the birth announcements. so we have to restrict to the well-known selective sources--WSJ, NYT, & similar. And the major magazines, not the ones with trivial features. A trade magazine typically covers everything in the trade, however inconsequential. The real problem is we have too few interested editors qualified to judge what is important, and if you have an interest and expertise in the area, we can certainly use your help. DGG (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with John.  Indeed they need not be national newspapers.  A year ago, I created Cape Catch from an AFC request based on 2 independent reliable sources: 2 local newspapers.  I regret doing that, as it seems the company has now disappeared after doing nothing that I would personally consider notable.  Indeed, it seems to fall foul of the 'short term burst of news reports' exception in WP:N.  Is Cape Catch one of the few exceptions to WP:CORP that never should have been created? Or, are there hundreds of thousands of organizations with non-trivial articles in 2 local papers that get Wikipedia articles? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case (and in most cases) the problem is not one of local vs. national; instead, the sources in that article are not sufficent to establish the notability of that company.  The guideline uses the words "significant coverage"; not the words "a mention".  I won't comment on whether the article should or should not have been created, but it should not have been created without siginifcant couverage in sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is in part that of local. there is significant coverage in local newspapers of every locally significant business establishment. It's the way local newspapers survive. DGG (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just don't see that as a problem, given WP:NOTPAPER.  The real problem is company articles with NO reliable sources. If every company article cited at least two sources from a local paper that were independent (i.e. not a reprint of a co. PR), and the company actually had significant coverage in those sources (i.e. wasn't just mentioned) we'd have a LOT better encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UnitedStatesian, I am puzzled by your first comment.  Cape Catch was the main subject in each of the articles cited, and they were in two different newspapers.  WP:CORP says that all newspaper articles are considered significant coverage, unless the mentions are trivial, such as meeting times, shopping hours and directories.  My concern is that lots of businesses may have non-trivial coverage, as Cape Catch did.  My question is, are may many such non-notable microbusinesses having articles created for them?  If so, do we need to tweak WP:CORP to make it clear why such businesses are not suitable for the encyclopedia?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to split hairs too finely, but the first article's subject was on "how young people are making an impact today" a pretty standard local paper fluff peice given to a jr. reporter on a slow news day.  Cape Catch was only an expample.  The source for the second article was the co's website, so we don't know: was it a full reprint, what was the context, did they change anything (or even make stuff up?) - in short, it failed WP:RS.  That said, I do think that the expamples of non-trival coverage do need to be clarified, and I will take a stab at doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every company written about in a major national newspaper is notable ? 

message: Has there been any discussion regarding special handling of articles about military units? Or is the consensus to just apply the standard notability guidelines for organizations. Sancho 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen specific guidelines for military units, and I just doublechecked the talk archives and didn't find anything "military".  Possibly also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has thought about this? --Lquilter (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:BIO and its predecessor pages have considered military persons  but I don't know of any formal discussion of military units.  The discussion about personnel concluded that no special rules were appropriate (beyond the explicit conclusion that rank alone was not a reliable indicator).  After thinking about it for a few minutes, I can't think of a compelling reason for a special rule for military units.  If a unit has figured prominently in some major action and has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent coverages, then we have the reliable sources needed to substantiate an article.  If the unit has not received such independent attention, no matter what other rule you applied, we still wouldn't have the sources needed to support the encyclopedia article.  Major naval vessels generally get articles.  Ground combat divisions might if they have a particularly notable history (like the 82nd Airborne).  I'm not sure that you'd see much beyond divisions, though.  At least in the US Army, units larger than division don't really have a stable independent identity and units smaller than division rarely have sufficient independent history (though there are exceptions).  Rossami (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soldiers seem to be very communicative about their experiences.  I cant think that any US or UK (or Canadians or Australian) division or regiment will not have a fairly good & easily found historical record--this particular human activity has always been very well documented.  From other countries, it may be harder to find them. Below that level, then it would depend. The rule has been that all ships, military or civilian are worth an article. Again, they always do have documentation, sometimes a surprising amount. DGG (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the UK, you can probably find enough to write about a regiment but in the US the regiment is primarily an odd entity, designed to promote esprit and a slight bit of continuity across assignments but not an actual combat organization.  I served, for example, in E Btry, 1st of the 320th Field Artillery Regiment.  But there was no regimental commander or staff nor was there any reporting relationship through that channel.  Only in the cavalry is it an operational entity.  I'd also be cautious about saying that every ship can support an article.  If I remember right, the Military Wikiproject struggled with good rules of thumb for some of the smaller ships.  Rossami (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military units 

message: I've got a running discussion going right now about the notability of a 100-watt radio station in New York state. Almost every college and university in the U.S. has these little 50-100-watt stations, many of them not receivable much off campus (unless they stream online); hey, I was on one myself back around 1973-74. I'm rather dubious about the allegation that they are inherently notable. Comments? --Orange Mike  | Talk 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All college radio stations are like any giant radio station. They are ALL officially recognized by the FCC. Most importantly in my defense of college radio stations is that most college radio stations broadcast their feeds via the Internet which makes the 100watts meaningless. You can listen on your computer anywhere in the world! See WNYO-FM (which is where this all started) for the appropriate links to the FCC, CNY Media Guide, and the WNYO homepage which displays the Internet link. WNYO-FM is also listed on the CNY Media Guide. If the FCC and CNY Media Guide felt WNYO or other college stations were meaningless than I would agree with OrangeMike. But they recognize us and therefore an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should as well! -FancyMustard (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  College radio stations? 

message: In what is starting to seem more like harrassment than a truth-seeking discussion, an editor at Church of Divine Science is asserting that this institution is not notable.  Rather than making the case here, could you all take a look at the article?  
Also, is there a method for resolving these disputes?  Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "method for resolving these disputes" is citing sources that establish that the topic meets the criteria laid out in WP:ORG -- criteria that you have ignored to date. HrafnTalkStalk 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can I get <strike>a witness</strike> some feedback?

message: Hi. I've been trying to create a page for DJC, an important production company in the city of Knoxville (with satellite offices in LA). DJC created the first purely digitally edited short, was recently nominated for an Emmy, has received a variety of awards in the industry and has received plenty of press coverage. Yet my article was speedily deleted, and when I inquired as to what I should change to make it acceptable, the admin was less than helpful. I have reviewed the notoriety guidelines and  believe that the page fulfills them (and I could add more if it could be undeleted). There are pages for other similar companies (see: AC Entertainment) which are significantly less elaborate and which cite significantly less references. Since nobody will tell me what to change, I'm going to post what I have here in hopes that somebody will tell me what to change in order to get undeleted, or else just undelete me. (I'm new here, I'm trying to learn!) Dingstersdie (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[DoubleJay Creative]]

message: Does anyone else think that Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali are non-notable? Those articles are basically advertising, and the references and external links are also just advertising for the organizations. The only article that links to Senang Hati Foundation is Tampaksiring, which was also written by the same author, and the only article that links to Smile Foundation of Bali is Cleft lip and palate, in which the same author added a link in the "See also" section.. Ideascomes (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two non-notable organizations 

message: The guideline is for a "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service."  In these modern times, a "group" doesn't have to be organized by traditional means to consider itself a "group". I'm thinking here of online communities of bloggers & forums.  People really do feel themselves as involved members of a group, tho their real identities, ages, addresses etc. may be unknown to each other and no one can say how many people are involved.  (We are, in fact, such a community of involved, often anonymous, editors in an online community.)
Now, these involved people will consider their cause notable.  They devote a large part of their lives to it.  How to convince them that it isn't notable in the encyclopaedic sense?
Case in point: in my opinion, polyphasic sleeping means sleeping at least two, probably more, episodes each day/night. (Bi-phasic sleeping is a good nights sleep + a siesta; poly should probably mean more than two.)  Infants, some old people, many animals and perhaps some pre-industrial societies do it.  These last 5 years the term has been "taken over" by online communities who even call themselves "poly phasers," written as two words, and they have a specific purpose for their activity.  Their article Everyman sleep schedule has been deleted; it's now a redirect.  Their article Uberman's sleep schedule is presently up for deletion.  They've pretty much hijacked the article Polyphasic sleep, which concerns me.  I can't see that this new fad is at all notable by Wikipedia's standards.  How should one tackle that, and is this type of "group" included in this guide? --Hordaland (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scanning the examples you gave, I think the page you want is Wikipedia:No original research.  Wikipedia:Reliable sources may also be useful to make clear that blog entries and primary sources can not support a stand-alone article.  And from your description, the process already seems to be working the way that it's supposed to.  All topics must meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria and comply with Wikipedia's sourcing standards in order to be covered in the encyclopedia.   Your specific question, though, was whether this page could help.  I don't think so.  It's pretty narrowly focused on the standards that are appropriate to a group of people organized as a single entity.  (And because such entities are often commercial entities, we stuck the standards for their products here.)  WP:CORP might help provide guidance on the Cleveland polyphaser club or the SleepAide 3000 but it's not really designed to give guidance on general topics like polyphasic sleep.  Rossami (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fads: unorganized organizations 

message: Is the Hong Kong Legends article notable enough? Should it be nominated for deletion? Sorry I'm not familiar with wikipedia policy here. --59.101.230.47 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong Legends 

message: Hello,
my mentor gave me the advise to go here and ask you for help. I just wrote an article about a company and would like to make sure that it meets the criteria for notability as I don't want it to be removed again after being published. On the german site it's already online. UNfortunately the references are all in German, although the company is internationally operating but it's a Austrian company. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nisse149 and give me your feedback! Thank you very much!!! 27.6.2008 --Nisse149 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus company article discussion 

message: An issue arose on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery regarding WP:CORP. Here we have an organization that "has been the subject of significant coverage" in a reliable independent secondary source. Basically, one issue of a wine magazine contained a profile article of this small start-up winery.
By the "letter of the law" this seems to qualify under WP:CORP. However, that same wine magazine profiles wineries all the time, it's their job. And the magazine article written on this particular winery is practically boilerplate, saying nothing notable about it. As I wrote in the AfD discussion, you could search-and-replace the organization name with another in the same business, make a few minor changes to fit, and the magazine article could be about any of hundreds of non-notable organizations like the subject.
I fail to see how that makes an organization notable in the spirit of the WP:CORP guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one article in a trade magazine would not qualify under either the spirit or the letter of this guideline.  The criterion specifically says sources.  We had a long debate when this page was created about whether a single source could be sufficient and concluded that it would be so rare that you would pretty much have to invoke WP:IAR.  The other concern in your example is the degree of independence that can be expected of a trade magazine.  In general, they are not considered to be sufficiently independent of the subject since they tend to be highly dependent on the covered companies for advertising and other support.  Rossami (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that explanation. It's always good to know the history behind these guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline clarification

message: There is a proposal for a new notability guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (political parties). Warofdreams talk 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed notability guideline on political parties

message: I am certain this topic has come up before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives associated with this page, unfortunately.  It is not uncommon for a small (or new) company's flagship product to receive significant press but the company itself only receive incidental coverage in articles about that product.  An oft used argument at AfD is that "notability is not inherited", which I agree with in general; this works well when such a company has only a single notable product (discuss company in product article, not unlike WP:BLP1E).  However, as in the case of 9th Level Games, companies with notable products can be problematic in that the 'merge company to notable product' does not work unless one applies 'merge company to each notable product' ... which is one solution.  An alternative solution is to wave the notion that notability is not inherited and specifically apply it to companies with multiple notable products.  A third solution might be to ensure that a section on the company is included in an appropriate aggregation or list-type article.  Thoughts on precedents as to how to deal with this 'notable products - company without demonstrable notability' issue?  Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a fourth solution: don't have any unsourced section on or discussion of the company at all.  This would seem to be what is consistent with WP's core verifiabilty policy, and the basis for WP:NOTINHERITED.  There is no reason we have to link every word in an article, and this is true for linking to the non-notable company in the notable product's article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If there is only one product, and the product is more recognizable than the company, then merging the company info to the product is certainly reasonable. If there are multiple products, then it may be more reasonable to merge and redirect the products to the company, if that would aviod redundancy. It's hard to imagine a company that has multiple notable products that is not at least minimally notable itself. Dhaluza (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products notable - Company non-notable