Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Guidelines on software

The guidelines per the old (and now defunct) notability guidelines for software redirect over here to this page. The problem I'm seeing is that software, unto itself, doesn't quite gel with how software tends to get published. A good example would be Joe's Own Editor (aka 'joe'), a command-line based text editor commonly found accompanying *nix based computer systems, which as of this time is in AFD. It's a well-known editor, love it or hate it, among Unix and Linux operators, but doesn't really fall in line with WP:N or WP:RS, let alone WP:CORP's products and services, as a general rule - thus forcing me to ignore the rules when I cast a keep !vote. A side effect I forsee is that many articles on software that is obscure per the above guidelines, yet well known and pretty notable despite WP:RS, are at risk of finding their way into WP:AFD, for no better reason that they now don't fit into the puzzle.

In short, I think we need to do either a revision to incorporate software such as joe, further clarification on the issue at hand given the circumstances (though this is possibly putting too fine a point on it), or worst case, reinstate the old software guidelines.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to come from the other side of the spectrum here. From where I see it, we have too many articles on minor software projects, that seem to be inserted by all of these bit players to try to take advantage of Wikipedia's track record at search engine manipulation. The fact that it's easy to find some notice of these packages online in small online trade publications only encourages wikilawyering and me-too-ism. It's gotten to the point that I tend to assume that any non-consumer software package is presumptively spam.

That said, non-commercial software of historical interest probably ought to be given a pass. So long as nobody's trying to make money off of it, I'm willing to at least overlook the fact that the sources are old, online text documents that may not be reliable under the strictest terms. When software of historical interest is involved, as in Joe's Editor, it's probably as of-record as it gets.

I don't really see a need for changing this; I favor tighter notability guidelines at least to anything sold by or to a business. On the other hand, if it isn't a company, organization, or product, this guideline would appear not to apply, which would kick it back to default. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very much in Smerdis' camp on this one. "Well-known among hardcore *nix users" does not equal notable in a broader universe, if the subject fails WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N, it fails. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dennis the Tiger touches upon my primary reason for minimal of interest in software-related articles: I have no rule of thumb that I am comfortable with to determine if a given software is notable, whether the software is proprietary or open source. Further, what can actually be said about most software beyond a list of its revisions? For example, if the list of release versions were removed from PKZIP's current revision, the article would be quite short. While that article is missing information on a number of important aspects of PKZIP -- such PKZIP was useful to early PC users because of the expense of hard drives at the time -- there are countless examples of software where I'd find it difficult to find enough information to bring an article about it to Featured Article status. (Anyone want to try to do this with "ls", for example?) However, in many of these cases, merging numerous articles stalled at "Stub" or "Start" class into a more general article (e.g., "Archiving software", or "Directory software") could solve this problem, allowing Wikipedia to contain information on notable items with only limited information available, while avoiding the challenges of deletionists -- who sometimes have a valid argument that is unfortunately being misapplied. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA is just like a WikiProject. I see no reason to delete anything that has no potential to satisfy the fancy of few FA regulars. By the way, there was an attempt to narrow the criteria for software WP:Software notability, but it failed. Pcap ping 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Local media coverage and notability

I think that, consistent with WP:GNG, coverage by local media or specialized publications ought to be enough to establish notability. Such publications are almost always reliable sources, and the few that are not can be treated accordingly. Modern Brewery Age is not an exciting publication, but it is a useful source of information about the brewing industry. I recognize the concern that accepting coverage by local media would result in more not-terribly-interesting articles, but excluding those sources is keeping some useful and encyclopedic topics from being adequately covered. Not every newspaper is available for free online, and this fact sometimes keeps coverage by regional or national media from being added to an article. Coverage by national media is good, but coverage by local media should not be dismissed as worthless. I would like to see the appropriate change made to the media references in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Be very careful with this one. In some small towns, local media cover every garage sale and bingo game. The measure should be signficant and non-trivial. If the local media covers every bingo game, then covering a particular game doesn't make it notable. If they cover a particular game as a human-interest story, it still might not be notable because they might have picked it at random off a list of local community activities. A good rule of thumb is the "belly button" test. If the item is something every town of its size has, it's probably not notable, no matter how much local coverage it gets. If it's really unique and is a major tourist attraction, then local coverage should be used for most of the article, but significant out-of-area coverage needs to be shown so the article doesn't get challenged on notability grounds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastmain, I'm not sure that I understand your issue. Are there subjects that you can't write about at all because only highly specialized sources write about them?

Or is this about not being able to write a complete article, because someone is mistakenly claiming that only certain kinds of reliable sources are acceptable (e.g., only free or online sources are acceptable, or only periodicals with a certain circulation size)?

On the second point, Wikipedia has never excluded any class of high-quality sources on the basis of editor convenience (e.g., free, online, whatever).

On the first, local media is rejected solely for the purpose of deciding whether a global encyclopeda should have a completely separate article entirely dedicated to a subject because if an organization receives notice solely in its immediate area, then it's (we assume) not interesting to the rest of the world (because if it were interesting to the rest of the world, then the rest of the world would have mentioned it, and therefore sources about it would exist outside of the local area). We don't want entire articles dedicated to the "Lake Woebegone church ladies' annual garage sale", or to "Smallville's Alcoholics Anonymous Thursday Meeting", or "Joe's Gas Station and Bait Shack at Highway 2 and Main Street" because they're purely local. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a local business directory -- even if these organizations are important to the individuals involved.

However, once you've found a notable topic -- whether it's garage sales, church fundraisers, AA meetings, gas stations, brewing techniques, or whatever (notice that none of these are purely local concepts, and that national media mentions the each of these subjects in some way, even if the national media doesn't provide every single detail) -- then you can certainly include information from local sources for examples, illustrations, details, and more -- and any of that can be supported from even the tiniest of third-party media sources.

A little community weekly or a highly specialized source is a fine source for supporting (verifying) sentences in a big article; it's only rejected when you're trying to use it as proof that something that is never mentioned outside its pages deserves a completely separate article (notable). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Local sources are fine for establishing notability. WP:NOTE says nothing about global notability (search for global, its not there, nor is it in this guideline), and if it did we would lose more than half our articles. Think for a moment, how many members of parliament in the UK do you think an average Chinese person could name? Or how many Senators of Liberia do you think get covered by the Russian press? How many people in France know of Hillsboro, Ohio, and how many times do you think that city gets covered in the main newspaper in New Delhi, India? Not many, and the list could go on all day. What's more, your local exclusion view has been rejected. See the original version of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) 1st draft, and then read how a requirement for non-local sources was rejected by the community on the talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your keyword search was inadequate. Under #Primary criteria, you'll find the following relevant paragraph:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.

You seem to misunderstand what we mean when we talk about local coverage, however. If Liberia's own national newspapers write about a Liberian business, then this is an excellent indication of notability. However, if a tiny newspaper for an isolated village or a small town is the sole source of information about a person, place, or thing, then notability is not indicated.

Think of it this way: There are more than six billion people in this world. If only one of them publishes something about a subject, then this one person's opinion is not a good indication of notability. Otherwise -- I can do desktop publishing. I could write a newspaper tonight, sell subscriptions to six of my best friends, and then you personally, and anything else that I ever choose to write about, could be "notable" by tomorrow morning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Global was your term, not mine ("global encyclopeda" [sic]). And your then quote then discounts your earlier insistence on global ("national, or at least regional"). As in, that ain't global (or world as you later use). As to misunderstanding, I'm sorry but when you write things such as "not interesting to the rest of the world" that comes across as unless the rest of the world is interested, then we should not have an article on that topic. As in (to pull in my examples), people around the globe don't give a damn about Hillsboro, Ohio. And people in London don't care about a senator in Liberia. And I don't misunderstand what local coverage is, it is coverage by say the weekly newspaper in your local suburb. But, you seem to be misunderstanding my point about what global notability would entail (or world to use your term), which is where the topic needs to rise to the level of say World War II, as a large percentage of the people around the world would know about it, and thus it would be "interesting to the rest of the world". Now, if that is not what you mean by your previous post, then please explain what you do mean.

Now, back to your quote from CORP. Notice that it says: "solely from local media". Keyword is the first, solely, which you mention above. Which means, local media can be used to establish notability, it just cannot be the sole source according to the guideline. As in, a regional one or two plus a handful of local sources works. And this doesn't mean it can only be used to provide supporting details as you discuss, but it means the local sources can be used to help establish notability. They just cannot be the only (AKA sole) sources.

As to your desktop publishing hypo, you might want to review WP:RS, which self published items are generally excluded, and thus note the very first sentence of this guideline "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Thus, your hypo is not a concern, as your newspaper would fail as a reliable source.

Lastly, CORP is subservient to NOTE, so, as NOTE has nothing about local sources, the fact that CORP tries to limit it is rather irrelevant. In fact, I've never quite understood why CORP tries to be more limiting when the purpose of the specific notability guidelines is to be less limiting. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking your points in reverse order:

1. CORP is more limited than the GNG because editors are, in actual practice, far pickier about the sources used to establish the notability of things that cannot have any impact outside of a very small geographical area, such as tiny local businesses. We correctly reflect the existing consensus. Even if CORP didn't exist, and had never existed, two articles about Joe's Gas Station in a tiny local paper would never be accepted under the WP:GNG: if necessary, editors would invoke (and have invoked) WP:Ignore all rules to delete such articles.
2. If I start a newspaper, my statements about you wouldn't be considered 'self-published' within the meaning of Wikipedia's definitions, because I am independent of you. The first issue won't immediately have the necessary 'reputation for fact-checking' (no periodical can have a fact-checking reputation before it exists; at most, we can have an expectation of such a reputation), but I'd get there soon enough, and the reputation would be retroactive to the first issue. (It might interest you to know that I once worked for a small-town newspaper.)
3. While this guideline doesn't prohibit the inclusion of some local sources in a bid for notability -- it only requires the existence of at least one solid non-local source -- I doubt that you'd get very far with such a claim unless the non-local source is so amazing that it is practically sufficient on its own.
4. Different local geographical locations are likely of interest to the rest of the world. The "rest of the world" does not have to include every single person. The town you name might be interesting to people visiting that general area of Ohio; it might be interesting to people that have relatives or friends in the area; it might be interesting to its sister cities (if any); it might be interesting to people reading about the role of rail in the economic development of the late 19th century; it might be interesting to students looking for a "matching" city (size, age, economy, etc.) for a comparison of "my" city with "this other" city; and so forth. That geography isn't interesting to you doesn't say anything about what interests other people. We don't require that "a large percentage of people" know about it or are interested in it; we require that somebody outside of the immediate local area be interested.

I hope that this helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Helps? You act like I am some sort of newbie here. This is an argument over the interpretation and implementation of CORP. So your views, while interesting, are not gospel. And though articles can be deleted under IAR, its a very stupid choice of a policy to invoke in any situation. As I have pointed out many times to those who wish to invoke IAR, it is a double edged sword and would allow anyone to immediately re-create the deleted material.

With your #3, what exactly is your reason for repeating basically what I said above. "Which means, local media can be used to establish notability, it just cannot be the sole source according to the guideline. As in, a regional one or two plus a handful of local sources works."

And point #4, why do you get to decide that a local geographical location is apparently more interesting to the rest of the world than a local company that employs say 10 people and sells stuff over the internet around the world (antiques come to mind)? Most companies that size would not normally meet your requirements as few companies like that are going to get much press, locally (depending on the city) or otherwise. But there would be some people across the globe that the company would be of interest to, maybe even more so than the only on maps locations that we have plenty of articles on. As in it was a train stop 80 years ago and there are like two houses and 5 people living in that general area now. Please note I am note arguing against including them, as these are notable, just pointing out that there is a rather limited global audience for this and much of our content on Wikipedia (again, a senator in Liberia, or say Poland if they have them, is not of much interest to anyone except people in those countries [not world]; i.e. "not interesting to the rest of the world"). Which, as I pointed out previously, is why we still do not have a "local" clause limiting inclusion of locally known things, despite an attempt to add one. As in, as there might be some confusion, I am fine with regional and country-wide notability, but above you were arguing for interest to a global audience.

For point #2, simply incorrect. Self-publish on Wikipedia is a separate concept than independent. Independent has to do with the relationship between the source and the subject, and that's it. Self-publish has to do with, and only with, how the source is published, and that's it. That is why at WP:GNG it says "self-published material by the subject". As in, if your definition was correct, then the quoted part would read simple "self-published" as the rest would be redundant. Now, in time your newspaper could become RS, but you could not "...write a newspaper tonight, sell subscriptions to six of my best friends, and then you personally, and anything else that I ever choose to write about, could be "notable" by tomorrow morning" (emphasis added) as you contend.

It might interest you to know that I once worked for my junior high newspaper, my college TV station, took a journalism class as a grad student, edited my law school's sports law journal, and wrote and worked for my law school's online case summarizing journal. Not sure why it would interest you, but apparently these sorts of things are somehow relevant to this discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an assumption here which is creating a situation where the tail is wagging the dog: notability should be determined by the context of the subject, not by the nature of its sources -- although the latter approach does work frequently & avoids the need to be an expert in the subject matter. Let's consider a very tangible example: what would be the five largest British-owned automobile manufacturers currently in existence? My qualification "British-owned" is significant: many traditional UK brands are now owned by non-UK companies like Jaguar (Ford, based in the US), Rolls Royce (BMW, based in Germany), Lotus (Proton, based in Malaysia) & Rover (either SAIC, based in China, or BMW). At this point, unless you are a fan of British sports cars, you are not likely to recognize the names, which include Morgan, Caterham, TVR & Bristol Cars. Yes, you might find an article on the New York Times or BBC websites which provide a list, but the material from either is likely to only be accurate for the year the article was written. So unless you consider this subject to be not notable, you will have to consult a specialized publication -- or source -- which tracks these kinds of things. -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Specialized publications are almost never "local media," and specialization does not necessarily mean that the publications are of "limited interest and circulation". Many specialized publications are of significant interest (e.g., medical journals) and large circulation (NEJM reaches almost a quarter of a million physicians).

Even if these brands were never mentioned outside of obscure publications -- and therefore did not qualify for a separate article (=the subject of this guideline) -- they could still be included in Wikipedia, in an article about, say, British sports cars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

the problem with local media is their tendency to be indiscriminate, and include what is essentially public relations, and thus not indicate any actual notability. A local newspaper would normally feel obliged to do some sort of article or interview with every published author in the town, & every local restauranteur. Sometimes the material here can be reliable--what a person says in an interview about the routine facts of his life is a RS for that--but it is rarely really enough for notability. I would not make this an absolute rule--it really depends on the type of coverage rather than the newspaper. Really high quality discriminating responsible editing can make a difference, and the absence of it in a a larger paper can also make a difference in the opposite direction. The key factor is responsible editorial control, as for any source. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)