I wonder if it would help to link to Earned media in our explanation of desirable sources, to be contrasted with paid advertising and works published by the subject (both of which are undesirable sources, completely useless for demonstrating notability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea in principle, since one of the principles of earned media is that you had to convince a journalist the company was worth writing about. However, the linked article focuses so much on the hype-machine element of earned media that it risks bringing "undesirable sources" into the mix. Compare this, from Earned media

Earned media often refers specifically to publicity gained through editorial influence of various kinds. The media may include any mass media outlets, such as newspaper, television, radio, and the Internet, and may include a variety of formats, such as news articles or shows, letters to the editor, editorials, and polls on television and the Internet.

To this from Forbes

Earned media, more commonly known as publicity or public relations, requires you to convince a gatekeeper at a media outlet — such as an editor or news director — to communicate your message. Usually, this means your message is communicated indirectly, through the words of a journalist.

Even the Forbes wording -- "your message" -- is a red flag re: promotional coverage, but it's clearer than the linked article about the role of the journalist. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What I like about the Wikipedia article is the statement that earned media is something "other than advertising (paid media) or branding (owned media)." As it is a term used by PR departments, I'm not surprised that they are focused on their own activities. Putting "their" terms in here might help them understand what we're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across as excessively negative. I like the idea.

It's just that the article is a mess, and I worry that could become a distraction. I did some poking around, and it was mostly written by two SPA's. One only edited that article and added the examples table, which is blatant WP:COPYVIO. The other is an IP-editor from India that added the same three examples (Shave Club, Oxford dictionary, Assam Tea) to three marketing-related articles and never edited again. Assam got 8 source and the others only one each. Sketchy.

Will try to devote some time to cleaning it up, especially considering the copyvio issue (undetected for 9 years). There is plenty of potential sourcing, not just the Forbes article. Oblivy (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I basically reduced Earned media to a stub and rewrote it.Oblivy (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gotten Earned media to a place where I think it's encyclopedic and not overly focused on the marketers. Note that my reading revealed a bit of a lexical shift away from earned media being in traditional outlets like print and TV news, to social media mentions and buzz. Whatever use this term has probably needs to steer clear of that. Here's a suggestion:

Earned media sources published by reliable web or media outlets may be used, although care needs to be taken to avoid sources where the outlet is effectively paraphrasing a press release or other marketing material generated by the article subject (see the second example under dependant coverage, below).

Perhaps this moves closer towards what you were thinking about? I'm not sure you and I are completely on the same page, and the above is free-hand writing, but it's a suggestion.

On the topic of dependent coverage, would it be helpful to number the dependent coverage examples (as is done, for example, for positive rules in WP:NBAND and WP:NPROF) so we can point to a specific paragraph without just saying "the bullets under dependent coverage"? Just a thought. Oblivy (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an even smaller change?

There's a sentence now that says "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article", and perhaps it could be expanded to say something like "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article; we are looking for earned media instead of branding or paid media." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I like from Forbes:

Puffery is making general claims that can’t be proven, such as: “Our product is the best!”

Puffery is one of my go to tells for undeclared native advertising that renders an entire source inadmissible for the GNG (which doesn’t mean it can’t be used to support content).

A hard definition of puffery , like this, would help. “This product is the best” (no criteria) is puffery. “This author considers this product to be the best” would not be puffery. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The bird picture from MOS:PEACOCK works great. Graywalls (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A little tweak to the language proposed by @WhatamIdoing

"Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. However, this does not exclude the use of Earned media published by reliable sources."

Not sure where puffery would go if included. I considered using the term "produced by reliable sources" (to center the role of the journalist/editors) but per the discussion above there's a risk that concerned editors would argue reliance on facts provided by the company makes it "produced" by the company. Oblivy (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Oblivy, I like that wording. Maybe "...published by independent reliable sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I like that change. Oblivy (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I went with a simpler version, that I believe no one will object to: Only unpaid sources count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That specific wording could be argued to exclude peer-reviewed publications that charge a submission fee. Which would be an incredibly tendentious reading, but guidelines should ideally be abuse-proof. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A wikilawyer-proof approach is a good one, but I'm not really sure how to say "It's okay to pay J. Important Stuff to publish the article you wrote after it goes through their review process (except when the journal is predatory), but it's not okay to pay Local Daily News to publish the article you wrote after it goes through their review process".

I'm not sure that it comes up all that often in the context of organizations, businesses, and products, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

A festival is an organized event. As such, a strong argument can be made that a festival is an organization, or is a service of an organization, both of which fall under this guideline.

I came across Mushroom Mardi Gras Festival, which seems to be cited exclusively to local community news sources, not something with a national or at least regional scope as required by this guideline.

Do we have a guideline on festivals? Or would it be appropriate to add a clarification in this guideline? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Most festivals have a parent organization that exists solely to run the festival, conventions, etc. (or maybe two-three other events) and I would agree that NCORP must be applied to this level for this reason. Masem (t) 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not applicable to the mushroom society, but there is an exception to WP:NCORP if the group that runs the festival is a "non-profit educational institution" or religious organization. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevant guideline is WP:NEVENT. S0091 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I would expect most participants at AFD to compare the subject against NEVENT or the GNG, but there is no single required approach. If you think that the organization is the more appropriate guideline, then you can argue for NORG. If the next person thinks that NEVENT is the more applicable approach, then they can argue for that. Nobody gets to decide what the other editors will choose.

@Anachronist, if you'd like to make that article go quietly away, then I suggest that a Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers to Morgan Hill, California#Culture might be more successful than AFD, especially since the festival has received significant coverage (500+ words) in a major regional newspaper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not sure if the article should go away, although at the moment I'm viewing it as not meeting the WP:CORP threshold. The San Jose Mercury News is a regional paper, but for this purpose it's a local paper. It's like a local New York City event covered by only the New York Times and a few local tabloids and nothing outside the city, not something I would call notable just because a major regional paper happens to cover an event local to that paper. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we have an RfC on this last year and decide that this *isn't* what we mean by local? We mean scale not distance? (A single news source would still not put it over the bar of course, we would as always want significant coverage in multiple independent sources) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We had a couple of discussions here earlier this year, but I don't remember them actually turning into RFCs.

@Anachronist, you might find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement useful. Think about the practicality of it. The New York Times publishes 365 days per year. There are 11,500 restaurants in that city. They would have to run more than 30 restaurant reviews per issue to cover all of them. They can't; they don't. They selectively pick and choose the ones to cover. That's what we're hoping for in a source: the ones that reliable sources voluntarily select for coverage. They're not being paid for it; they're not indiscriminately filling space; they're talking about the ones that they believe are "noteworthy".

Contrast that with the small town where I went to college. They have (or had, when decades ago when I was a student) a twice-weekly newspaper. There are 39 restaurants in town. Running just one review per issue, they could review all of them twice a year and still have twelve weeks leftover for the neighboring towns. Taking each restaurant in turn just because you can is indiscriminate, and it is not what we're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement is the longer version. Perhaps it's clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there may very well be situations where the notable party isn't the festival per-say but the organizing group/commission. But its going to be contextual, there are certainly festivals who have outlived a dozen or more official organizing groups. The vast majority of festivals will not fall under WP:CORP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So the unsatisfactory answer is: festivals CAN come under NCORP, but not always. They can also come under NEVENT. But when in doubt… go with GNG. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

I think you are looking for WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

For ease of use, I have redirected Wikipedia:What do you tell your boss?, Wikipedia:What do you tell your boss, and Wikipedia:What to tell your boss to that essay. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination) about whether content written by an organization but republished verbatim by a third party is independent coverage of said organization.

Assistance in resolving this question would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself says:

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)

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)

I think this aligns with what I was trying to get at above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I think you agree with Alice, then Mach61 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. BD2412 T 02:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)