Notability guidelines rewritten

[Mason]

The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been rewritten:

For example, a draft article on Acme Inc. cites four sources: a single-sentence mention in an article by The New York Times when pointing out a missing feature in a rival's product when compared to the product by Acme, an extensive company profile in Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor, a blog post from a tech enthusiast who has provided a review of the product, and a court filing by a competitor alleging patent infringement.

It goes on to state that such an example company would not have sufficient notability to be included.

I've seen many articles about organizations and companies that despite having a half-dozen or more references would not meet this inclusion threshold. I would not be surprised to see a major purge of such articles soon. For better or worse this category of articles is disliked by many, many Wikipedians (and outright despised by more than a handful.)

[lonza leggiera]

The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been rewritten:

For example, a draft article on Acme Inc. cites four sources: a single-sentence mention in an article by The New York Times when pointing out a missing feature in a rival's product when compared to the product by Acme, an extensive company profile in Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor, a blog post from a tech enthusiast who has provided a review of the product, and a court filing by a competitor alleging patent infringement.

It goes on to state that such an example company would have sufficient notability to be included.

……

Is there a typo here? The rewritten guideline's actual conclusion about this hypothetical company is:

Therefore, the article does not have a single source that could be used to establish the notability of the company, let alone multiple sources.

[Mason]

Yes, thanks for the catch.

[Kumioko]

I hope someone starts submitting mass AFD's for articles that don't meet the new criteria.

[The Garbage Scow]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

[Anroth]

I will say I am fucking tired of explaining forbes/sites to people.

[Midsize Jake]

I will say I am fucking tired of explaining forbes/sites to people.

Dang, and I was just about to ask you to explain it, too...

[Poetlister]

Obviously, company articles are where you are most likely to find paid editing going on. If the number of company articles is slashed, paid editors will find it considerably harder to do their job. Is that part of the thinking behind the revamp?

[Kumioko]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

I'm rather surprised someone hasn't suggested all the early Medal of Honor recipients be deleted since most of the Civil War and Indian Wars era ones have very little information. Most of the Iron Cross recipients have already been deleted or redirected to the List pages. I expect eventually the MOH will be as well.

[The Garbage Scow]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

I'm rather surprised someone hasn't suggested all the early Medal of Honor recipients be deleted since most of the Civil War and Indian Wars era ones have very little information. Most of the Iron Cross recipients have already been deleted or redirected to the List pages. I expect eventually the MOH will be as well.

And yet, people will defend every one of the 32,072 fancrufty bytes of Dale Gribble (T-H-L) and the redundant List of King of the Hill characters (T-H-L) to the bitter end.

[Anroth]

I will say I am fucking tired of explaining forbes/sites to people.

Dang, and I was just about to ask you to explain it, too...

"Its from forbes! Its reliable! Forbes! FORBES!"

For whatever forbes/sites contributor is waffling on about their pet peeve this week.

[Poetlister]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

I'm rather surprised someone hasn't suggested all the early Medal of Honor recipients be deleted since most of the Civil War and Indian Wars era ones have very little information. Most of the Iron Cross recipients have already been deleted or redirected to the List pages. I expect eventually the MOH will be as well.

Given the US-centric POV of Wikipedia, I expect that the MOH is regarded as more notable than the Iron Cross. On the other hand, if you're an editor with a POV on the other side in the Civil War and Indian Wars era, you might want to downplay MOH winners.

[Kumioko]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

I'm rather surprised someone hasn't suggested all the early Medal of Honor recipients be deleted since most of the Civil War and Indian Wars era ones have very little information. Most of the Iron Cross recipients have already been deleted or redirected to the List pages. I expect eventually the MOH will be as well.

Given the US-centric POV of Wikipedia, I expect that the MOH is regarded as more notable than the Iron Cross. On the other hand, if you're an editor with a POV on the other side in the Civil War and Indian Wars era, you might want to downplay MOH winners.

I do agree that the project is way too US centric, that has always been a big problem. I do also agree that it's probably held in higher regard than the Iron Cross if for no other reason than there are so many more Iron Cross recipients. I think I very strong case could be made though that many of the early recipients don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. One big one, the MOH inclusion criteria was established by WikiProject Military history, a Wikiproject, and it isn't nearly as strong as it used to be in terms of members or influence. I think it would be rather easy for someone to justify that the ACW and Indian wars recipients just aren't notable enough and don't have enough supporting references. Additionally, in the ACW it was pretty much the only award you could get. It really didn't become notable until around WWI.

[Earthy Astringent]

So I’m curious to hear your opinions about how these new guidelines would apply to well trafficked websites. In other words, does “it’s popular!” still count as passing the GNG bar? Look at the fuckery over an AfD for Democratic Underground (T-H-L), a hyperpartisan message board. Think Daily Kos (T-H-L) but without any credibility, much less notability. On what universe is this forum even remotely notable under Wikipedia’s rulez? The arguments are basically versions of “It’s important/popular” without any evidence showing how or why it’s important.

Look at this doozy keep rationale by then Arbcom member DGG: (emphasis added)

The re seem to be sufficient news stories, but about half of it, the copyright troll lawsuit, is covered elsewhere in WP. The GNG needs to be interpreted liberally for media organizations w which can be very notable, but still rarely written about. There of course has to be at least something to show more than mere existence, and there is here.

And when asked how the Democratic Underground is a media organization:

In a broader sense, sites devoted to advocacy and news about current events count as media organizations. In any case, I favor a broad interpretation for sites such as this, as I do for all political subjects. Otherwise there tends ot be sometimes a tendency to be influenced by what one supports personally

One of the first thing anyone who edits Wikipedia in a contentious topic area is what constitutes a reliable source. Using equivocation to equate a forum with newspaper is beyond the pale. How did this moron ever pass an RfA, much less make it to Arbcom?

Sandstein’s closing message was brilliant, “The result was keep”.

[Kumioko]

I don't think very highly of DGG or Sandstein for different reasons. Honestly though I think this new guideline is going to open up a huge can of worms, it's going to create a lot of drama as the deletionist's start nominating websites that don't meet this new inclusion criteria for AFD. It's really only a matter of time before Arbcom gets thrust into it and tells the community that their decision after a month of deliberation and discussion is that the community should get along and work together.

[BrillLyle]

This is a terrible idea. Just another niche area for deletionism. This in no way protects Wikipedia.

I have discussed my wish to work on company pages in the past, given my background working in M&A at an investment bank where company profiles were both fact based and helpful.

But I would never go into these pages given the bias of En Wikipedia editors. All this does is make it more difficult for anyone to improve these pages and add facts and content.

It's just a terrible idea. I mean, what will be left, the Simpson characters and Pokemon. Could it be more of a nerdy boy equation?

[Textnyymi]

It's just a terrible idea. I mean, what will be left, the Simpson characters and Pokemon. Could it be more of a nerdy boy equation?

Still not convinced to leave the project? Just wait until someone points out old discussions about underage people "love" and various kinds of advocates for niche causes, such as "Intelligent Design"!

[Randy from Boise]

So I’m curious to hear your opinions about how these new guidelines would apply to well trafficked websites. In other words, does “it’s popular!” still count as passing the GNG bar? Look at the fuckery over an AfD for Democratic Underground (T-H-L), a hyperpartisan message board. Think Daily Kos (T-H-L) but without any credibility, much less notability. On what universe is this forum even remotely notable under Wikipedia’s rulez? The arguments are basically versions of “It’s important/popular” without any evidence showing how or why it’s important.

Look at this doozy keep rationale by then Arbcom member DGG: (emphasis added)

The re seem to be sufficient news stories, but about half of it, the copyright troll lawsuit, is covered elsewhere in WP. The GNG needs to be interpreted liberally for media organizations w which can be very notable, but still rarely written about. There of course has to be at least something to show more than mere existence, and there is here.

And when asked how the Democratic Underground is a media organization:

In a broader sense, sites devoted to advocacy and news about current events count as media organizations. In any case, I favor a broad interpretation for sites such as this, as I do for all political subjects. Otherwise there tends ot be sometimes a tendency to be influenced by what one supports personally

One of the first thing anyone who edits Wikipedia in a contentious topic area is what constitutes a reliable source. Using equivocation to equate a forum with newspaper is beyond the pale. How did this moron ever pass an RfA, much less make it to Arbcom?

Sandstein’s closing message was brilliant, “The result was keep”.

Although I agree with DGG less and less these days, he is correct here. Facebook and YouTube are tagging links to Wikipedia articles onto posts and videos to provide inquisitive users with information about the originating agency. WP should have a very, very, very open door to articles on news-content organizations, be they enormous and reputable or microscopic and disreputable.

Of course, the deletionist cretins at WP will never grasp this necessity and will continue to impair content on their mission-to-destroy...

RfB

[Poetlister]

WP should have a very, very, very open door to articles on news-content organizations, be they enormous and reputable or microscopic and disreputable.

Such articles would need careful monitoring, at least as careful as BLP ones. They are all too likely to be attacked by people with COI and POV, especially those about disreputable sites.

[Auggie]

There seems to be a large wave of general deletionism going on lately.

The content creators have given up, and even the gnomes are tired. No one is even trying to become an admin anymore, and the infighting is beyond tiresome. Deletionism is one of the only ways left for power uses to flex their muscles.

There is also the age old issue of Wikipedians' bias towards fictional characters and products over things that are made in the real world. If we're talking about a weapon that is carried by Pokemon, or some crap film that was made in 1998, they have a better chance of being included than a camera that sold a million units.

If anyone wants to point me toward some of these at-risk articles, maybe I'll try to save a few.