Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 1

message: Note: Companies and Corporations was merged with Organizations (notability) on 2-3-07 per consensus reached that date at talk for the former, with redirected discussion from the latter.  Please comment here prior to making large changes.  However, please fine tune to remove obvious gaffs by the editor who combined the topics.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Given the sheer amount of controversy on the talk page, I have rewritten the proposed guideline from scratch to make it shorter, more common sensical, less complex, and more tolerant. Also, I've added a section on local chapters of global chains, and made the suggestion for merging articles on products if there's little information available about the product. I hope people find this more acceptable, and now yield the floor to more discussion. Radiant_>|< 22:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer the old version, warts and all.  The main differences that I see are that the examples and clarifications are gone, nearly all products are to be merged into an incomprehensible, user-unfriendly mishmash in their companies' articles, and the "company holds more than a 20% share in the market area that it competes in" and "company has more than one million customers" options are missing entirely. —Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Market share is tricky. Who defines the market? Research firms like Gartner? Markets are being redefined all the time and there's a lot of "fuzzy" there. What about companies that are defining a new market? Before the iPod, did Apple compete with Sony? What happens when Apple comes out with a phone? Anyone could claim significant share by claiming they are defining a new market. Dgray xplane 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:CORP, Take Two

message: I would like this reworded a bit to be less verbose. In particular point one ("excluding anything printed by the company itself, or directory-like information" would cover it, I'd say), and point three probably doesn't need six examples of what stock indices qualify. Radiant_>|< 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: There should be more tolerant and less arbitary criteria. The largest U.S index I know of only includes 500 companies and there are already several times that many articles about U.S. companies. In Germany the main index has thirty companies, but in the Japan it is 225. The Japanese economy is not 7.5 times the size of Germany's. But then the UK has both the FTSE 100 and the FTSE 250, while the main French index has 40 companies. Most of the companies with articles are nowhere near these indices and there must be at least a thousand articles about defunct companies. Also, there are vast numbers of articles about private companies and subsidiaries (I've been categorising some of the U.S. companies). I suggest that any company with 500 employees should be eligible, as well as any company which has a high profile with consumers or has produced innovative products or been involved in newsworthy events. Wikipedia has many articles about small record labels for example. Rhollenton 12:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too restrictive

message: I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Regarding this phrase: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The word "non-trivial" in this sentence could use some elaboration. For example, I interpret it as excluding small industry publications. The alternative interpretation would make thousands or tens of thousands of additional companies eligible for inclusion, since industry publications typically cover a very small number of companies, meaning everyone gets his fifteen minutes. This came up in a recent (still open right now) AfD for a small consulting firm. Therefore, I am suggesting that we add a sub-bullet to the exclusions in criterion 1, saying something like, "Articles in small industry publications not widely available to the public are not sufficient evidence of notability." That's just an idea on the wording, of course. I look forward to comments. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested change to criterion #1

message: ... since this apparently covers products and services, too.  Unless there are objections, I'll move the page in a week.  -- Perfecto 00:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a ridiculously long name. What about Wikipedia:Notability (businesses and products) or simply Wikipedia:Notability (business)?—jiy (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd almost be in favor of moving it directly to WP:CORP.  Does anyone really ever refer to it in any other way? —Cryptic (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Notability (companies, corporations, products and services) 

message: I would say that an important (but subjective) criterion for inclusion of a company, service, product or whatever in WP is that the reader should feel that this inclusion benefits WP, i.e it brings usfeul information to WP and the reader and not the other way around it bring advertising to the included company, product or service.--Khalid hassani 17:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An other suggestion

message: I'd like to expand Chains and franchises by adding:
'Individual hospitality hospitality related businesses that have earned the highest rating from an accepted rating group would generally merit an article.'
I'm suggesting this since it should be clear that these establishments are notable and this is not always clear to some editors.  I had one case where what is now a 4 diamond hotel had to be merged into another article.  We could footnote the ratings that are accepted and in some cases in might be only the highest rating and in others the top two.  I was thinking for hotels and restaurants we could use:
:*AAA (4 and 5 diamond)
:*Michelin Guide (54-3 star restaurants in 2005, worldwide)
:*Mobil Travel Guides (14-5 star and 140-4 sart restaurants in 2005, US and Canada)
:*Zagat Survey
I'm sure there are other guides that could be added to provide more extensive coverage. Vegaswikian 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chains and franchises 

message: Is there some tag or place to list pages like TBO Solutions B.V.? --Error 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some tag?

message: It would be great if the people who create or delete these 'not notable' company articles could also move it to Wikicompany using the web form. The wiki text can simply be copied into the description textfield. Wikicompany also strives to be NPOV-compliant, but is less strict when this is not the case. Thanks, Walden 13:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikicompany

message: Subsidiaries can only meet 1 out of 3 criteria, but there are some very important companies which are subsidiaries. Osomec 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The company criteria are biased against subsidiaries

message: The current criteria is very vague and disqualifies many notable companies.  Here are some proposed changes.
# If a company/product is a world leader in a certain market/industry, it should be definitely included. (E.g. Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, AOL)
# If a company/product has played a significant role in the history of a certain market/industry, it should almost definitely be included. (e.g. Acorn Computers, Netscape, Lycos, Excite)
# If a company/product is well-known and notable for:
#* Having a cult following,
#* A certain aspect of the company/product which is unique to the company/product (e.g. AOL users' reputation),
#* Being widely regarded as a superior alternative to another more well-known/well-used but inferior product (e.g. OpenOffice.org, Apple Macintosh),
#* Being involved in a famous/notorious event/incident (e.g. BeOS for its lawsuit with Microsoft, G&R for their lawsuit with Gmail),
#* Attracting massive controversy among users and experts in that market/industry (e.g. Norton AntiVirus)
#* etc. etc.
#: it should probably be included (open to discussion).
# If a company/product is a medium-sized competitor (or is growing fast) in a market/industry but is notable for offering a superior product to the main competitors and/or meets any of the above criteria, it should probably be included (open to discussion). An example would be 30gigs.com.
# If the market/industry is relatively small and obscure, whether to include the company/product is open to discussion.
:There have been proposals to delete articles about web hosts such as Bravenet. Bravenet currently has the largest market share in free web hosting, and is listed first under Free Web Hosts in the Yahoo! Directory. Webhosting is a large and major market in the Internet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildanknight (talk • contribs) 
*Your suggestions seem to be rather subjective.  I'm not sure that would make it any easier for getting included, it could cause more problems as editors argue over issues like is this product really unique.  Vegaswikian 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review criteria - suggestions for improvement 

message: * I have seen recently many spam-ish articles for businesses lately that have been asserting their notability with brief mentions or articles in small local publications.  Shouldn't there be some sort of notability level required for the media sources?  Because I'm sure almost all local businesses have been written about in a local paper at least one or two times.  Additionally, many otherwise non-notable online businesses will have short articles in web publications.  For example, does a 4-sentence paragraph on [http:www.eweek.com eWeek] and a paragraph-long article in a local online publication count as notable?  Wickethewok 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to ask the same question. It might be worth it to explicitly note that local business section articles don't qualify as "non-trivial". On a similar note, where would product reviews fit into this rubric? --Lee Bailey 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question/comment regarding notability Criteria #1: media coverage

message: I believe this clarification to criteria 1 should exclude such organizations as the Better Business Bureau:
* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
-- Robocoder 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company critiera 1 

message: This is an issue for us because of the very large number of small clubs  putting articles on Wikipedia. This is presently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#When is a club notable?. I invite anyone who is interested to join in the discussion. To avoid splintering the discussion may I ask that this specific case be delegated to this forum. I will bring the conclusion we reach back to here with a request to add it to the project page. BlueValour 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#When is a club notable? has now concluded and we have reached unanimous agreement that: English football clubs in Levels 1-10 are deemed to have inherent notability. Since virtually all football clubs are companies it is appropriate to this project. I am, therefore, proposing to add this criteria to the project page. BlueValour 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for additional clarification, BlueValour is referring to Levels 1-10 of the English football league system. Qwghlm 12:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording on this page was a little vague, so I have updated to it to more closely reflect the wording of the agreed proposal. Hope that's OK. Qwghlm 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it was fine as it was. The phrase 'is deemed to be inherently notable.' duplicates the line above and 'Clubs that fall outside this criterion must prove notability by other means.' is not needed as that is a pivotal point of all notability guidelines. I doubt the need to add 'mens' but on reflection I have included it for absouletly precision. BlueValour 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'inherently' is not in the current wording here; as it is, it implies only clubs in levels 1-10 are allowed, which was not what was agreed upon. Can I suggest removing the leading line, and the following rewording in the bulletpoint: "English men's football clubs are considered inherently notable if they play in Levels 1-10 of the English football league system." Qwghlm 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The formulation follows that of the other sections. For example companies are notable if they meet the relevant criteria but it is open to any company to demonstrate notability by other means. The reason for the leading line is so we don't have to duplicate wording for each league we agree. However, to move things on I have put 'inherently' in the leading line. If this is OK, I intend to move on to Welsh clubs next! BlueValour 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, keep the leading line. I've expanded the bulleted point into a full setnence and included the word "inherently" in it as well, it makes it grammatically correct, and it means people can copy & paste and quote the rule directly in a single line in AfDs and suchlike. Qwghlm 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, there is no need for it; it simply duplicates the leading line. BlueValour 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of English football clubs 

message: This issue has emerged with regards to Anthropologie, (see relevant AfD). I would like to start a dialogue to determine what corporate subsidiaries are notable. See Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Cendant, Yum! Brands, and Gap (clothing retailer) for examples. I feel that the 'ad hoc' system that exists now is adequate for companies that have a very direct relationship to the general consumer population, like Gap, Cendant, and Yum!, where the subsidiaries are advertised independently. But for GE, how familiar are customers with the products of GE Industrial, GE Infrastructure, or even GE Healthcare? And it's much worse in the defense sector; contracts may be won by Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems & Solutions over Boeing Integrated Defense Systems and Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, and that's how it will be written in a press release. But when newspapers outside of defense & government write the story, they will omit the division names. How important is it for Wikipedia to make these distinctions; for example, was the F-35 Lightning II won by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics or simply a Lockheed Martin? Sertrel 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of company subsidiaries, divisions, and brands 

message: I noticed the  template that, until now, was on the top of this talk page and I was interested in participating in the discussion (I did not find the proposed new name to be an improvement). However, I was completely unable to find the discussion at WP:RM. That's when I looked into the edit history and learned that the template had been there since last December. If I have been overly bold in doing so, I do not object to being told I've gone too far. However, given the lonnngggg time it has been there, I don't think that was too unreasonable. If anyone thinks there ought to be a move or name change, I think an entirely fresh discussion is in order. Agent 86 01:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move or name change 

message: As per recent news , would anyone get ticked if I changed the name of the country to something else?  Tuxide 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds cool; to what do you suggest Germany should be changed? :-) BlueValour 00:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, *cringe* Canada???  God forbid...oh well, it would have to be from this list, and I would rather choose a country where the only Wal-Mart owned stores in it are Wal-Marts and SAM'S CLUBs (like no ASDA/Bodega/whatever else).  Tuxide 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Wal-Marts in Germany 

message: Criterion 1 is not, it seems to me, laid out as logically as it should be.  The first bullet point lists things that are excluded, while the second bullet point, at the same level, lists things that are included.  But what is actually meant is that those inclusions are subject to the exclusions of the first bullet point.  The hierarchy should be made clearer, perhaps as follows:
* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
:* Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 
:* Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.  
--MichaelMaggs 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical relationship between exclusions and inclusions 

message: Criteria 3 is The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.
I don't know enough about stock markets to evaluated this criteria. Is it enough (as one editor has suggested to me) that a company be listed on a stock market index (i.e., all public companies are notable), or does calculate refer to something more exclusive than this? Regardless of the answer, I think it'd be good if a footnote explaining what "used to calculate stock market indices" means was added to that criteria. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about criteria #3: stock index calculation 

message: Well, I would like to know what about the notablility criteria for football clubs in other countries such as Italy, Germany or Spain? These nations have also a strong non-league footballing culture. Are these nations excluded from the criteria? --Siva1979Talk to me 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think that very specific criteria should be removed entirely. Football clubs, or sports clubs, in general should not receive special treatment. Fresheneesz 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries? 

message: Would a company that has products that qualify as notable under the guidelines for products automatically qualify as notable itself?  If not, should it?  I think the advantage is clear: if a company has, say, 3 marginally-notable products, we'd be much better off with just one article about the company, with redirects from those products, than multiple individual short articles. JulesH 13:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should continue to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  While your solution is probably a good idea in the scenario you describe, I would not want that to be any automatic conclusion.  There are a few cases of very private companies where we have independent, reliable sources on the product(s) but not on the company that makes them.  Those cases are rare but happen just enough to make me think that the status quo is better.  Rossami (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company with notable products 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: Just wondering if in "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." interviews with say, an owner of a company (about the company) counts towards this requirement or not (assuming it meets all other criteria (published, independent source). Thanks, VegaDark 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it depends very much on the nature of the interview.  Some interviews are puff pieces full of soft-ball questions and are practically indistinguishable from company press releases.  Such an interview should not count.  Other interviews are strongly independent with aggressive, even adversarial questions.  Those come closer.  Unfortunately given the frequency of the former type of interview, I'd recommend a stance of "when in doubt, find another source."  Rossami (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do interviews count as non-trivial?

message: Is there a policy pertaining to companies creating articles to advertise their product?
For example Simdex
:See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Spam. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: If an article is objective and verified, who cares? Wikipedia is where people comes to get the nooks and crannies of information of the world. If Wikipedia thinks it's better than any information, than it's no different than those big encyclopedias it says its more inclusive than like Brittanica. People Powered 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My significant other is personally incorporated. Should I write an article about that company? The answer there is very much "no". Obviously, there needs to be a cutoff line somewhere. The line that the community of editors at Wikipedia has settled on is reflected in this guideline. It can change, of course, but I can't imagine that it could be dispensed with entirely. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of comanies are just not notable.  I suppose that if we ever get most of the notable companies included, then editors would be more willing to move the bar lower to include more companies.  Vegaswikian 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We use verifiability to make sure that we aren't spouting lies. Another part of verifiability is that if its verifiable, that means that some trustworthy publishers cared enough to write something about it - which basically automaticaly makes it notable. Fresheneesz 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *That particular assertion is false - see User:Uncle G/On notability. >Radiant< 22:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a Lousy Thing

message: The sports clubs section is obviously biased - because it only contains english football league clubs. Are there any objections to either removing this section or making it more general? Fresheneesz 21:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the sports clubs section 

message: Is "companies and corporations" really any clearer, or any more general, than just "companies"?  Ken Arromdee 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies and corporations 

message: Would it be useful, if we added a comment about the potential of an article to look like those of say, Firefox, Youtube, and Google? If the artice written on a company has little potential to be edited from a broad base of users, then it is likely something to be excised from Wikipedia. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I'm prepared to change the notes as follows based on the discussion above:
*  Examples of company ranking indices: Fortune 1000 and Forbes 2000. Companies listed on such indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion.  However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such rankings will be complete regardless.
*  Examples of such stock market indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, S&P 1500 and the S&P Global 1200, CAC 40 & CAC Next 20, Nikkei 225, FTSE All-Share Index, FTSE 250 Index.  See list of stock market indices for more. Companies that form the bases for stock market indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion.  However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such indices will be complete regardless.
:::Last call - Williamborg (Bill) 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out under "Too restrictive", Lilleborg still does not satisfy any criteria for notability. Despite the doubts of a certain admin, I checked, and found that it does not match the stock market indices test either. However, take a stroll through any Norwegian grocery store, and you'll find at least half of their product lineup on the shelves. They are a very much notable company, which does not fit any of the proposed criteria.--TVPR 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you said, your counter-example is not relevant to this question about the expansion of the stock market indices.  Rossami (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Does it meet WP:LOCAL? Vegaswikian 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's necessary, and I don't see any consensus to go ahead. Certainly there is support, but there are few commentors in the first place and objections exist. I would suggest that this be advertised at the Village Pump, WP:N, and other places in order to get more views to hopefully develop a consensus. (I'm much happier seeing something I oppose happen when there are a lot of people on the other side of the fence rather than just a handful. ;-) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Add my voice to the "please expand this criteria" chorus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think that the notability requirements are too strict for companies. A privately held company that has thousands of employees and has been in business for decades is notable in my mind, even if there is little to no academic writing on the company. People come to Wikipedia because they know they can find well-organized unbiased information on just about anything, and it doesn't make sense for someone to search for a company they've heard about and find nothing here. I think the notability of a company can be determined by how many different Wikipedians edit a given company's article over the course of a few months. If an article is created as a stub and then modified just a handful of times in three or four months, it can probably be deleted. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a good measure. Wikipedia is a chaotic system and two equally-(non)notable companies can have articles created, with one getting a lot of attention (say, because it was vandalised by the same IP that vandalised George W. Bush and people followed the vandal there) while the other gets no attention. Not only that, but our criteria really should be based on the outside world, which is what we're documenting. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  If there is "little to no academic writing on the company", what are we supposed to use for our sources when writing the article?  How can we possibly comply with the requirements of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in that scenario?  Can you give us a counter-example of a company which fails to meet the requirements of this page but where we could write an non-stub article that meets the requirements of those three non-negotiable policy pages?  I agree that people come here because we have a reputation that they will be able to find well-organized unbiased information.  Without independent sources (which is really what this page requires), we can't live up to that promise. Rossami (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a company makes the news periodically, can that be used as a source? Most news about companies comes FROM the company in the form of a news release. Can the company's own site be used as a NPOV source? A lot of companies are too small to merit academic study but still are very important to the communities or regions where they operate, or important for other reasons such as their contributions to their field or industry. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to have a stub--even an unsourced stub--about any company that is likely to be searched for. If it's common knowledge within a given region that a company exists, Wikipedia should at least acknowledge that it exists and give basic factual information about it, such as what the company does and where it is located.— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "News" which is based on company-issued press releases can not be considered a reliable source for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article. It suffers from too many inherent conflict of interest problems. Self-published information will never tell a truly NPOV story. The company's press releases can be confirming sources for non-controversial elements of the article but can never support an article alone.  I have to disagree with the assertion that an unsourced stub is better than nothing. The cusp has been passed for Wikipedia. We are no longer desperate for expansion of our topics. We are now being asked by the Foundation's leadership to focus on quality and verifiability.  As for the "common knowledge" data like company name, industry and address, it's long-established policy that Wikipedia is not a directory. That information may be useful but it's not part of our mandate to assemble or present directory-like information. Rossami (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of the companies in :Category:Privately held companies would make good examples. Should most of these be deleted? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a company is private, it could be difficult to get NPOV information. In Nevada there are many private companies that we can write about because they do have public information.  All casino sales, openings and approvals are made by a state board which has public meetings, so information is made available.  Our problem is does the company meet the criteria in the guideline?  A good current example would be a company owned by Bill Richardson and members of John Ensign's family.  A company they own, Generation 2000], sold a casino to another private company.  At first blush, this comany does not meet the criteria.  However since the control board and gaming comission do publish the results of an extensive backgroud check on the individuals and the companies plans, they probably do meet criteria 1.  Remember this is not as simple as walking into a city office and getting a license to operate after paying a few dollars.  Vegaswikian 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) I didn't check every company in :Category:Privately held companies but the first one I looked at (Bain & Company) is clearly includable. They were "named by Consulting Magazine as one of the Best Firms to Work For in 2005". They come up in comparative analyses by research firms like Gartner Group and Forrester Research. While the article could use some balance, they rather easily meet the first inclusion criteria - multiple non-trivial published works. Can you be more specific in your counter-example? Rossami (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just that articles are nominated for deletion simply because no one cares enough to dig for sources. Shaklee, for example, is a well-established company that was founded 50 years ago and operates in a number of countries. A Google News search for Shaklee reveals a number of recent articles, but finding "multiple non-trivial published works" on Shaklee would be a significant task. I don't think we should be deleting articles just because no one has done the work to meet this standard yet. If a former employee of Shaklee happens by Wikipedia, (s)he is much more likely to expand a small, just-the-facts article than they are to create a new article and make it great right away, especially if (s)he is new to editing. I support keeping this type of article for year or more, except in cases where it's obvious that the company is of little importance in the business world. If Wikipedia can have a gazillion articles on sex positions or school districts in Wisconsin, then it should have a few paragraphs about any company that's made a sizable contribution to the economy, culture, or region. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose closing discussion

message: Fellow editors—please be proud of your insights/perspectives. Please sign them so we can include you in an open, honest, productive debate and reach a productive solution.  Here are some late night thoughts on the recent cluster of anonymous edits: 
*We’ve had quite a few anonymous edits on this topic recently. 
*I'm bothered by anonymous edits because it’s hard to tell if they are serious comments, if they are "hit and run" edits by some newby wandering through, or if they are socks and we actually have fewer folks involved in the discussion than it appears.
*And when "hit and run" editors make a change you can't get them involved in sorting out the questions raised (see Saxifrage's legitimate question just above on Add "primary"?). 
*What's worse, this entire chain of discussion was started by an anonymous edit (which I agreed raised an important point & which was brought here for discussion). 
*Anonymous edits do have value and I'd not discourage them if you feel you must do it that way. 
*We'll work to be civil in this debate so you’ll not feel the need to be anonymous. 
Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 16:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Late night thoughts on anonymous edits

message: The example of the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms in note 2 apparently opens Wikipedia to being a comprehensive restaurant guide. The little, totally ordinary, mom and pop diner across the street where I live in Manhattan can likely claim to have been reviewed by multiple sources. Bwithh 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Note 2

message: I am finding an increasing number of articles popping up about shopping malls, with no references aside from the organization's own website.  Has there been some discussion that I missed, about how we want an article on every shopping center in the world?  Or should these be flagged for deletion/expansion?  Please note that I'm not talking about the chain as a whole, but about articles on each and every location in that chain, large and small. --Elonka 05:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about articles like Bayside Shopping Centre and Highpoint shopping centre. --Elonka 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't missed anything. There just appears to be a sudden influx of dubious mall articles. See Talk:The Centre at Salisbury for an example. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have edited a few mall articles. A couple were speedy deleted this past week citing spam and notability factors. You may have seen my comments on DRV and VPP. To me, guidelines are one thing, policy is another. I feel there is no problem with the better-sourced articles, but anyone can make the argument that the mall s/he is editing is notable - and come up with "reliable secondary sources". In my opinion, Wikipedia needs to decide as a matter of policy whether or not 1) articles on individual malls are even allowed whatsoever and 2)if so, under what concrete, specific criteria (arrived at by using several historical examples from DRV, maybe?). That would save semi-newbies like myself - who are innocently editing these articles in complete good faith and no desire whatsoever to willfully violate policy  - MUCH frustration. If I had known the articles I edited were technically "not allowed", I would have possibly taken the initiative and at least nominated them for deletion myself. Perhaps an addendum/amendment to WP:CORP would be in order?--Msr69er 18:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shopping malls

message: Over the last day or so, there has been fairly extensive editing to Wikipedia:Notability (web).  I noticied that it used to be pretty similar to this page - any additional opinions on the new revisions there would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (web)]] 

message: (portions repeated from a comment posted above) I have edited a few mall articles. A couple were speedy deleted this past week citing spam and notability factors. You may have seen my comments on DRV and VPP. (Tonight I noticed another mall was speedied, not one of mine but from another editor).
To me, guidelines are one thing, policy is another. I do agree somewhat with the need to make sure all articles on Wikipedia are suitable for an encyclopedia. What I disagree with is a general prejudice I am sensing against shopping malls. I will always maintain, as others have done from what I have read, that the shopping mall in general, and many specific shopping malls in particular, have:
* cultural significance
* economic significance
* social significance
within their local market area and in the larger sphere (regionally and nationally).
Such factors of significance in my eyes automatically imply inherent notability. Furthermore, such notability can be and in many cases has been proven, as per the primary criterion for notability, with "reliable secondary sources" of a non-trivial nature, most often in the form of newspaper and magazine articles locally produced on each mall. From the primary criterion;
"...* What constitutes 'published works' is intentionally broad, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies...
...The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable)...
... Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject..."
I would argue that at least two or three sources satisfying most or all of the above criteria can be found on almost any shopping mall in the USA if a couple of hours of research in a local public and/or university library were undertaken. Some can be found on the archives of newspaper websites.
It is not always possible to find scholarly books or peer-reviewed journal articles on every mall, nor should that be (again, IMO) a requirement to establish notability. Shopping centers are not universities, skyscrapers, government buildings or sports stadia - but arguably just as important to the lifeblood of a community (and I don't see many articles on these categories being speedied).
Articles on shopping malls are relevant to the scholars of architecture, urban planning, economic geography, social and economic status, retailing, psychology, and many other related fields. 
I noticed an above comment on a different article, which I agree with, that the notability requirements themselves are not always consistently enforced - indeed, cannot always be consistently enforced when there are 1.5 million articles to review and counting - and probably need to be envisioned as different from such guidelines that would govern article suitability in publications such as Brittanica or World Book, as Wikipedia, by its very nature as an online resource not limited by traditional page and/or volume restrictions, can be so much more inclusive than either of those traditional print encyclopedias - and STILL provide completely valid, notable, useful and verifiable information to the reader on an incredibly vast range of subjects of interest.
In my opinion, Wikipedia needs to decide as a matter of iron-clad, consistent policy whether or not 1) articles on individual malls are even allowed whatsoever and 2)if so, under what concrete, specific criteria (arrived at by using several historical examples from DRV, maybe?). Gathering guidelines from several different places is not enough, because this has become an issue of contention not only for myself but also for several other Wikipedians. 
That would save semi-newbie laypeople like myself - who are innocently editing these articles in complete good faith and no desire whatsoever to willfully violate policy or to be a source of frustration for admins - MUCH frustration (and this whole thing is beginning to negatively color my own experience as a Wikipedian). If I had known the articles I edited were technically "not allowed", I would have possibly taken the initiative and at least nominated them for deletion myself. 
Perhaps an addendum/amendment to WP:CORP would be in order? If you feel the existing guidelines are enough, can you please help me out as to why you think so? Thanks very much.--Msr69er 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can a policy be developed once and for all re: shopping malls?

message: In the interest of preventing advertising, part of the policy should state that a minimum number of outside non-trivial reliable sources (maybe 3-5) be used in a mall article, and that sources from the mall owner/developer be limited to an external links section, not a "references" section. The article should follow a suggested standardized format in which there is some discussion of the mall's cultural, social and economic impact on the local market area, as supported by these outside sources. Newspapers and magazine articles count as reliable secondary sources based on my understanding of the guidelines for notability.
Any mall article not meeting these standards should be candidates for the AfD process, but not speedy deleted unless, after careful review of the page and its history, intent can clearly be deduced to spam, advertise, vandalize or otherwise committ major violations of policy. In the case of a speedy delete, the article should be immediately placed in DRV by the deleting admin and the last editor notified on his/her talk page and given a chance to argue his/her case and/or rewrite/resubmit the article.--Msr69er 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds as though we disagree sharply on the very relevance of the shopping center, and also on the "non-trivial" nature of press coverage on such malls. To reiterate my position would not be helpful here.--Msr69er 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would consider the process suggested to me and started with WP:MALL to be an attempt in such a spirit of acheiving consensus, It is not my intent to contribute to instruction creep, but the debate on the suitability of mall articles for Wikipedia is one extremely worthy of having. These issues will continue to arise, and some clarification of standards - be they of the existing guidelines or adoption of expanded ones such as I have proposed, IMO should alleviate some of the issues I have seen the last few days. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and I consider myself still "in training" as regards to procedure, but I will not back away from making suggestions I think will solve a problem or make a positive contribution.--Msr69er 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be most interested in such a project and I can think of at least two other editors I have encountered through this very process who would share such interest.--Msr69er 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, I am a relatively new Wikipedian and I consider myself still "in training" as regards to procedure. Thanks for the clarification.--Msr69er 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can a policy be developed once and for all re: shopping malls? (part 2)

message: Could someone please change Forbes 500 to Forbes Global 2000 in FN 3?  The Forbes 500 has not been produced for four years, having been replaced by the Forbes Global 2000.  I attempted to make this change, and got reverted.  Thanks!  68.160.221.170 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's only being used as an example of a company ranking index, it doesn't matter whether the index is currently in use or not. To ward off any further argument, however, I've added the reference to the newer index.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to footnote 3 

message: The section "Criteria for companies and corporations" says that one thing that makes a company notable is that it is used to calculate some kind of stock market index.
What about companies that were once huge and notable under this guideline - but which have faded to a mere shadow of their former selves - or perhaps have disappeared completely.
I think it's worth saying that if a company was ever notable under any of our criteria in the past - then it is still considered notable now - even though bad things may have happened to it since.
If we don't apply this change to the rule then historical records of notable companies could disappear - which would be a terrible thing.  (I'm thinking specificially of Silicon Graphics which was spectacularly notable 10 years ago - but which would not meet notability guidelines today - but I'm sure there are others).
SteveBaker 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is the huge structural problem with the concept of notability. Anything that is not of interest to the majority of current editors is called non-notable, and deleted, regardless of it's importance to others. Trollderella 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are truly good sources on a topic, it will not be deleted, regardless of editor interest in it. Most people don't care about random historical figures or mathematics, or whatever traditional subject, but these articles are never nominated for deletion, and they are never deleted; there are mounds of reliable sources on them. —Centrx→talk • 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is generally agreed upon that something that was notable in the past remains notable in the future - so something that was used for stock market indices at one point but not any more remains important, just like any historical figure that happens to have died since. Note that as a result of systemic bias, we tend to overemphasize contemporary and recent things (for instance, a contest to find the "10 greatest people of the last century" tends to focus on people of the last ten years or so). So something that is hyped up now and forgotten a month from now (e.g. the average internet meme) is not notable now or in the future. But a company that used to be important? Certainly. (Radiant) 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If the company was in the past actually notable, then there would be reliable sources about that past. If they have done nothing notable recently, then the article would not contain much information about recent events, with only a gloss summary, but the topic and the article would still remain. —Centrx→talk • 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical notability versus current notability. 

message: Again: Is there anything served by the phrase "companies and corporations" that is not by just using one of those two words?  Sure, there's the off chance that someone could claim that the guideline doesn't apply because their corporation isn't a company.  But in practice those two words will be redundant almost all the time, and including both of them is an example of instruction creep.  Or at best, legalese.  Anything you gain from using both words you more than lose from encouraging Wikipedia guidelines to be worded like legal documents. Ken Arromdee 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a merger proposal which would suggest that the right name for this page ought to be "organizations".  The original scope of this page included both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.  I think that with some minor tweaking that merger could be achieved, streamlining the name and our policy-set even more.  Rossami (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur on merging this with WP:ORG and renaming to "Companies and Organizations" or something similar. Companies and Corporations is a bit like saying Simians and Apes. Also, for the Notability notice template, we need to be able to provide an  argument. Y'all think? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This proposal makes sense.  I think that having separate guidelines leads to ambiguity, unless both are carefully cross-checked frequently. I like "Companies and Organizations."  Whether an entity is a corporation, partnership or proprietorship seems irrelevant to our purposes.  How does this proposal get action? Kevin Murray 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies and corporations 

message: Are radio programs considered under these notability guidelines? I'm looking specifically at Ace & TJ Show, but I wasn't able to find specific guidelines for this type of thing. Any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio programs 

message: This may seem like a stupid question, but does "published" imply in print; that is, is a (non-trivial) mention or review on the internet by a site that does not publish its works in print sufficient to satisify criterion 1?  Neonumbers 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, print is not strictly required but web-only publications are held to a very high standard.  Very few qualify as reliable sources for the purposes of building an encyclopedia.  Do you have a specific example in mind?  Rossami (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree ... web-only publications used IAW WP:V#Sources and WP:RS need to exercise editorial control, fact-checking, and many do. It ought not to be hard to determine if a publication online meets that standard. (Many people think IMDb does, though their inability to review all submissions thoroughly makes me skeptical.) Things that I look for are author name on a byline, editors listed on the site, regular publication schedule, and longevity of the site. Also, ownership of the domain is a factor I consider (media organization versus individual, media corp versus corp selling a product, etc). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I see, that makes sense.  I asked when I was trying to figure out if the company Blue Microphones (www.bluemic.com) would satisfy the notability criteria — not with the intention of creating the page, but rather, to see if it would merit entry on the disambiguation page Blue (disambiguation).  The general attitude towards redlinks on dab pages (as a disambiguator) is that they shouldn't be there unless there's a very good chance of a good article being written on it (and if in doubt, don't — especially if the dab page is as long as that one).  But I'm not really in a position to say that the company hasn't been in a print publication, so I won't say that's the example I was after — it was really just a question of interest (so don't find me a specific answer if it involves any work, unless you know it will get a good article).  Thanks for your answer.  Neonumbers 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of "published" 

message: This currently reads:
:The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.  Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.
This seems to be widely misread or misunderstood.  Several AfDs quote a company as being listed on a stock market and reference this criterion as being sufficient to establish notability.  Also, overly broad indices (still not necessarily full market indices) may be brought up as justification.  With this is mind, I'd like to reword as so:
:The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate a major, managed stock market index.  .  Note: this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market.  The broader, or the more specialized, the index the less notability it establishes for the company.  An index that simply comprises the whole market does not establish notability.
Thoughts?  Akihabara 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed tweak made above.  See diff.  Rossami (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Managed" in this context has a specific meaning.  The DJIA and S&P500 are "managed" in the sense that an editorial board researches and deliberately selects the stocks in the index.  There are explicit selection criteria and the members of the index change with some regularity.  An "unmanaged" index is one whose members do not change (other than through IPO or delisting of the stock) and is composed of essentially all members in that class.  Specifying "managed" indices is part of ruling out the overly broad indices you first mentioned.   The intent of including the word "major" was to limit the list to only the reputable publishers of stock market indices.  We should not expose ourselves to gamesmanship just because someone gets themselves listed in the Bob's Bait Shop & Brokerage Index.Rossami (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification.  Please update the text if you feel it is appropriate.  Akihabara 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock market index criterion suggestion

message: I merged the proposals.  I tried to eliminate redundancies between the articles and among the included sections by having one section at the beginning which states the common criteria, then stated the specific conditions for automatic notabiliyt etc. in special sections referenced from the table of contents.  I treied to simplify but strengthen the note regarding advertising in the preface.  Of course I understand that my attempt will be limited by my frame of reference and understanding.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Perfomed

message: Editors of the Wine Project are having a discussion over on the talk page of WP:WINEGUIDE about the notability of wineries that would merit an article. One editor proposes that all wineries are notable, while another editor and myself do think that WP:CORP tempers that though I don't think we can do a cut and dry application at least with the way that WP:CORP is written. We would appreciate any input or additional perspective by editors who are more familiar with dealing with this guideline and business articles to chim in with their views. Thanks Agne 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * In California, where I live,  wineries are more prolific than body shops, though some people think that the use of one product can lead to demand for the other.  To the point, why should wineries receive notablility greater than any other company?  On the other hand, wine is a topic of broad interest and WP can provide a meaningful service by providing verifiable information, without being overly restrictive on the notabillity criteria. --Kevin Murray 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a general "overall" problem of laxity but rather the difficulties in the cookie-cutter approach to all types of businesses and organizations. As a baseline level of notability, it is okay but I think when you have a case of a lot of businesses doing the same thing (like wineries), you need a finer criteria to distinguish the notable ones from the non-notable ones. When you have an area that is very specialized in a niche sort of way, then there needs to a different level of criteria that takes into account the notability of the specialized area as well as the individual business.Agne 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Wineries 

message: While there was consensus to merge the two separate guidelines, I do not think that there was consensus as to the content of the guidelines. There is still a lot of discussion to be had as to the acceptability of the criteria, as was set out in the talk pages of both guidelines before the merge. Agent 86 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 86, I agree; however, it was impossible to merge without modifying the text in some way.  I agree with the tag you added though; thanks. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I tried to reduce redundancy but still keep all of the information and include the spirit of the streamlined text from December (popular), without eliminating the old text, so where there was an overlap, I left the old text.  It seems as though we needed some starting point.  --Kevin Murray 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you be specific about criteria which are too broad?  Did I delete something that should have been included? --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't like the "automatic" criteria either.  I think that if notabillity can't be demonstrated by independent sources, then the verifiability can't either.  I think that allowing unsubstantiated information from the organizations' own documents as sources contradicts other WP guidelines. --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Are you now in opposition to the merger?  Your prior comments seemed neutral "six or half dozen" --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, I'm trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand your concern,  It seems that while the attention of so many people is focused here due to the merger, this might be a good time to handle some of the lingering issues.  I will read what you've written. --Kevin Murray 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed to ''proposed'' guideline

message: * I moved the text about student newspapers, copied from Organizations, from the bottom of this page to the chronological position within the entries here (June 2006 start) see table of contents. --Kevin Murray 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on merger logisitics

message: I ask because it's becoming awfully misleading awfully fast.  The guideline itself acts as a pointer to the individual subject-specific guidelines, and, contrary to the wording here, "nearly all" of them do not, in fact, share the criterion.  The section should probably be reworded to reflect this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it ''really'' primary? 

message: In note 1, one of the examples given relates to cars with Haynes manuals.  Since this is only one published work, and the criterion requires multiple published works, isn't it true that cars with Haynes manuals are only halfway to meeting the criterion?  Can we find a better example than this, or delete this exmple? UnitedStatesian 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree this is a poor example and can be a bit misleading as a service manual is a poor example of the notability of a product.  I see no real value to this third example.  --Kevin Murray 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example nit question 

message: Does anyone else think that Note 4 sets a completely arbitrary standard?
*  Examples of such managed stock market indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600, CAC 40, Nikkei 225, FTSE 100 Index, FTSE 250 Index and Bombay's BSE Sensex.  See list of stock market indices for more. Companies that form the bases for major stock market indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion, but this ensures that our coverage of such indices will be complete regardless.  Being in a broader index such as the Russell 3000 is a weak indication of notability and should be supported by other sources, particularly for the smaller members of such indices. Dhaluza 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I hope you understand that I was being sarcastic with the "sacrosanct."  We are on the same team US -- those 2 should go! --Kevin Murray 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I would like to see them go for the opposite reason--I think they are an excuse for lazy deletionists to AfD articles without doing research on notability. I also think that these arbitrary standards are not compatible with the growth of WP, which is most "sacrosanct." Dhaluza 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Wow, three people agree!  Is that sound I hear the far off rumble of consensus building?  Dhaluza, I changed the title of this comment section to try to attract more contributors to the discussion and see if we can move forward. UnitedStatesian 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception standards - seking consensus