This page is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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.
I once asked this question. I was told there is an answer for those who come to the Help Desk or Teahouse saying their boss has told them to write a Wikipedia article about the company. That answer is not in the list of essays.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions • 19:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Assistance in resolving this question would be appreciated.
BilledMammal (
talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation
Say that there is an article about a consumer facing business (such as a chocolate company) currently up for deletion. In the deletion discussion, Alice cites a bunch of reviews for their chocolates. Bob doesn't dispute the
reliability or independence of the reviews, but argues that, since they are not coverage of the company per se, they don't establish notability
I have issues with Bob's argument. For all but the largest companies/products (e.g.
Cadbury/
Cadbury eggs), it will be desirable to have information about the two in the same article (this is explicitly stated in
WP:NPRODUCT). So, if the notability of one of those things is undisputed, deleting an article for not being notable in the other way is pointless. This is obvious if you consider a scenario in which someone later creates an article about the product, and information about the company is gradually added back in. If that happens, that means that the original article should have never been deleted, because any issues with it could have been resolved by normal editing (such as adjusting the relative promenince of information about the company/product, or moving the page title)
(In case it wasn't obvious, I have seen the "Alice" and "Bob" arguments made at AfD before. Also I know this scenario wouldn't apply to organizations for which there isn't such a clean division between "products" and the corporation)
Mach61 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall... is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product[,]... but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article... devotes significant attention to the company itself).
That said, if there are several products by a company, and those products have received sufficient significant coverage such that they are notable as a group or notable independently, I think an article about the company that is effectively a list of those items would meet
WP:NLIST.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That bit has always confused me... Most articles about product recalls or CEOs devote significant attention to the company itself, but the way its written makes it seem like thats an outlier rather than the norm. Its like saying the right thing, but in the least constructive way possible (seriously I'm not joking, I think whoever crafted that bit was either messing with people or has English language competence issues "a significant coverage" etc).
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that significant coverage of a product recall could constitute significant coverage of a company, and not just the product. However, I think the first two sentences are trying to implement a rule for corporations analogous to
WP:INVALIDBIO, so that someone can't just write "Elon Musk created a shell company in Delaware, therefore this article about that shell company should be kept since there's SIGCOV of Elon."
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 18:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
IMO that just falls under standard inherited notability same as ownership of anything else, and I almost never see the case where the CEO is notable but the company isn't... What we see all the time is cases where the company is notable but the CEO isn't and someone is trying to create an article for the CEO. Likewise with products the major problem is articles for the non-notable products of notable companies... Not articles for non-notable companies which make notable products. Maybe CEO and recall just happen to be bad examples (recall being particularly bad as a recall is always something the company does and never something the product does). It also seems to say that an article about a product recall "is a significant coverage" of the product itself but that isn't true, it might not be significant coverage of anything or it might be significant coverage of the company (or a regulator, activist group, etc) but not the product.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that your rationale argues for bundling of product articles, not for having an article on the company. That said, if there is GNG coverage of the products, and at least near-GNG coverage on the company, IMPO it would be within the norms in this area (albeit not explicitly supported by the guidelines) to have an article on the company if it is the place that the products are covered. North8000 (
talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this aligns with what I was trying to get at above.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I was already adding "Or a bundled article on the products as voorts suggested" and it ec'd with your post. :-) North8000 (
talk) 23:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you agree with Alice, then
Mach61 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the Wikipedia end result of Alice's argument (Maybe per wp:IAR.) without endorsing the argument. North8000 (
talk) 14:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would generally say that the purposes of the encyclopedia are better served by bundling notable products under their manufacturer, and treating the notability of the products as the notability of the company that makes them. This would only apply for products that are, in fact, notable, and discretely made by a single manufacturer.
BD2412T 02:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optoma Corporation is an AfD where "Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation" is being discussed. I have quoted the comments of several of the editors in that AfD. This topic has come up in previous AfD discussions, so should guidance about this be added to
WP:NCORP?
Cunard (
talk) 09:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is not inherited. If a company is notable, the sources will reflect that notability by discussing the company. If a product is notable, the sources will reflect that by discussing the product. And if both are notable the sources will reflect that by discussing both. Follow the sources. That is the only “one-size-fits-all” rule that works.
Blueboar (
talk) 12:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How often do you see this issue arising? If this is relatively uncommon, I wouldn't amend NCORP. If it is a common issue and clarification is needed, I think something like what I said above can be adapted into a short guideline, such as: If several of a company's products meet the
list criteria, then a list on those products may be created at a page using the company name as the
title.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Voorts, I have seen this argument multiple times, both at AFD and in general discussions. The usual story goes something like this:
"SIGCOV requires that we have ______ or the subject isn't notable and must be deleted. Here, we have three completely separate subjects: the entrepreneur, his first business, and his inventions. Looking at the sources I found in my BEFORE search, the BLP is only 90% of the way to notability, the first business is only 75%, and the second business has only 50% of the coverage needed for a stand-alone article. Therefore, all three subjects are non-notable, and we must delete them all."
It is usually accompanied by comments about how this source mostly covers the BLP "as a person" (e.g., about his family's role in the business), so that doesn't count at all for anything about the business, and that source mostly covers his business (e.g., about how his decisions during a business crisis resulted in success), so that doesn't count at all for anything about the person.
The obvious counter-argument is
WP:WHYN: if you've got that much coverage, you can write a decent article about all three subjects together, and besides, splitting up an entrepreneur and his businesses is silly, because it's impossible to talk about one without talking about the other. But these editors are trying to make their decisions algorithmically based on possible inputs, rather than seeing what can actually be accomplished. They are also usually operating under the belief that sources can only be "about" one isolated subject at a time, and that the recommendation to merge in
WP:FAILN doesn't exist. I've even seen experienced editors say that they didn't know that it's okay to merge information about non-notable subjects into other articles. If you [incorrectly but genuinely] believe that it's "anti-policy" to merge a sentence about the non-notable "Smallville Manufacturing" into a section about the ==Local economy==, then you'll certainly believe that it'd be "anti-policy" to merge the company, its products, and its founder into a single decent article.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 05:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For Geekom, I provided three reviews of Geekom IT8 Mini PC, one review of Geekom BookFun 11, three reviews of Geekom Mini IT 11, and two reviews of Geekom MiniAir 11 Mini PC. A literal reading of
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) would be that the company is not notable but several of its products are notable. So there should be no article about the company but it is fine to have articles about a few of its products.
I think we should workshop some language and then propose an RfC; this is going to need a higher level of consensus than a talk page discussion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Forgot to ping, @
Cunard and @
WhatamIdoing. I'll also add that, regarding WhatamIdoing's point, I don't think people are misreading NCORP, but rather there's a tension between NCORP and WHYN. I have a feeling there will be significant opposes to anything that would allow a company page to be kept in the hypothetical scenario described by WhatamIdoing.I think that a proposal to add something to the guideline that states that a company page should be kept as a list if there several products meeting
WP:LISTN (e.g., being discussed as a group, with some independent coverage of individual products not quite rising to the level of
WP:CORPDEPTH for any particular product) would be less controversial, but will still likely run into opposition. I think many people would prefer to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis rather than have a guideline that might create some inflexibility.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 17:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Voorts: I agree that this would need to be RfC-level discussion. Here is a proposed wording inspired by
this proposal from the book series discussion: "Sources discussing individual products in a company may be treated as sources on the company for WP:NCORP in creating a company article containing a list of the products." This is rough wording that needs to be workshopped.
Cunard (
talk) 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Voorts, I don't think there's even any tension between pages here. I think the main problem is that some editors imagine that Bob Business is inherently and irrevocably a separate subject from Big Business, Inc., and that both of these are inherently and irrevocably separate from the blue-green widgets that Bob makes at his business. They don't consider whether Bob plus the business plus the product might make a single valid encyclopedia article.
Long-term, it might be worth adding a "why we have these rules" section. I would expect it to say that we have tight rules because we want articles based on independent sources, and not because we are worried about spammers.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a messy example (with several other considerations involved) and this is a fuzzy area in general. IMO trying to write anything explicit here would just make it messier. North8000 (
talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Animal breeds
Animal breeds, especially ones that do not yet have recognition by governing orgs, are almost by definition products of commercial enterprises. Should they be evaluated under NCORP? I've been seeing some activity at AfC recently and realized pages on breeds can very easily become promotional vehicles for catteries. While such sources wouldn't be independent for GNG purposes either, a lot of other sources appear to be industry press or derived from what breeders say about their animals, and so the stronger enforcement of source independence from NCORP might be warranted.
JoelleJay (
talk) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's not recognized, and the breed is solely marketed by a commercial enterprise, I would think
WP:NPRODUCT applies.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would being recognized make it no longer a commercial product?
JoelleJay (
talk) 20:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It wouldn't; I just think that, practically speaking, you'd have a hard time overturning the consensus documented at
WP:NSPECIES.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well breeds are definitely not different species and so are not covered by that essay. I would hope the editors who work in NSPECIES areas wouldn't recognize a national kennel club as having any academic sway!
JoelleJay (
talk) 00:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t think the breeds themselves fall under NCORP, but the establishments that breed/sell them would.
Blueboar (
talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply