262:
website has given your product line some attention. If you haven't yet reached that stage, odds are you aren't going to pass muster under the guidelines anyways. Your customer base, moreover, is rather broad: everyone who drinks wine, eats bread, or wears shoes. This is why tangible consumer product businesses get the benefit of a doubt, though. The odds are in their favor that it could be shown that they received truly independent attention. Because of the spam problem, the criteria for inclusion for businesses ought to be at least as rigorous as the criteria for
258:
or a spectacular bankruptcy. There are hundreds of different paths to historical notability. There are probably more ugly ways to encyclopedic notability than there are desirable ways. You probably don't really want your business to be notorious enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. But without anything like that, odds are your business is not notable.
117:
534:. Moreover, it is uninformative - perhaps deliberately uninformative - and therefore just does not belong in an encyclopedia. That sort of material also generates instant doubts about the motives of the inserter: the actual method would be trivial or obvious if stated plainly, so verbal tricks must be used to make it appear to be something worth
651:, where it's all so complicated and up-to-the-minute that you'd like to think that your potential clients will cheerfully throw money at you just to be saved from all the change and complexity, you aren't going to win my confidence that way, either. This kind of text is just going to stand out as flagrant advertising and inherently non-neutral.
879:(XXG) expectation. I was also told that visitors from Knowledge (XXG) stayed with the RHUB website several times longer than those from Google search. This is good to RHUB but also shows the RHUB article does bring values to Knowledge (XXG) visitors. That is why I am willing to spend time on this article and answer the challenges from you.
755:. This is made almost inevitable by current policy. There's a lot more data available in edited sources about Spears than about Socrates, who had the misfortune of living before the Internet and before the mass media. Unfortunately, it's difficult to imagine how policy could be made tighter without introducing very subjective elements.
38:
94:
725:
though. Your PR people are not the ones who should be writing the
Knowledge (XXG) article. Amid neutral and encyclopedia style texts, their material will stick out. Somebody in engineering should do it. They may not write elegantly, but their text will contain information, and if the information is there it
720:
used in the offensive and inherently promotional way. I look through the results and either propose for various speeds of deletion, or if it seems that the business would likely be considered notable by consensus, stub and rewrite them so that they will no longer contain any of the trigger phrases.
582:
This is one of the most frequently encountered problems with business articles: they read like advertisements or press releases, and are therefore fairly obviously slanted. If you'd have to do a total rewrite on an article to make it pass muster under the neutrality policy, odds are I will favor its
510:
designed as a sort of verbal sleight of hand. This sleight of hand act may serve to mask the harsh reality of the manager's actual plans. It may also be used to make banal business plans seem innovative, incomprehensible, and so complex that you've no choice but to pay the proponent to enact them.
390:
Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest
809:
The following links are to off-Knowledge (XXG) sites that contain instructions, of various quality, about how to spam
Knowledge (XXG) to make money fast on the Internet so that you can afford a pair of pants. They are presented here for the edification of the actual editing community. My advice is
643:
All such text is morally suspect. The world abounds with "management theories" whose chief feature is that they increase the amount of documentation and overhead workers are expected to comply with while maintaining previous levels of production. These are typically trotted out with lofty sounding
467:
May it visit laryngitis, halitosis and a severe stutter on those vendors who describe disk drives, network routers, printers, computers, or pretty well anything that contains silicon and plugs in, as “solutions”. A disk drive is not a solution dammit, it’s a disk drive. This is so freaking retarded,
878:
I regret for this. Here is what was happening. In 7/09, we hired a contract marketing firm. They created an RHUB article in
Knowledge (XXG), which was removed eventually. Later I was asked to create an RHUB article because I am the best person to tell the story behind RHUB, which may meet Knowledge
545:
about the authors of pages that are full of slanted, meaningless, and grandiose but deliberately evasive sales patter. Perhaps a softer line should be taken with pages that are obviously by people who are not native speakers of
English. They may be just repeating buzzwords that they read, without
261:
Very simply: businesses that make tangible consumer goods are likely to generate truly independent reviews in reliable media, published under by-lines and subject to some editorial control. If you make wine or shoe polish or toasters, odds are that some consumer or connoisseur's magazine or edited
257:
of something." There are many ways for a business to make the history books. You could invent a product that changes the face of your industry. You could launch a brand so successful that it becomes a household name. You could also preside over a major disaster, a scandalous white collar crime,
574:
If a maker of air conditioners and golf carts calls itself a "world leader in creating and sustaining safe, comfortable and efficient environments," you aren't going to be able to restate that neutrally from the information provided in the text. Don't tell me it can be fixed by editing; it can't,
659:
Apply this test to your prose: am I getting a clear picture of the wares you will have on your stock shelves? What your rank and file employees spend their time on the job doing? If not, your article is too vague and seems evasive, even dishonest. An article about a business can be saved from
288:
First, the more technical your product is, and the more limited your customer base is, the less likely you are to receive independent, reliable coverage. If your customer base consists of investment banks or dental practices, that's a very small subset of the general public. This makes it less
724:
If you really wanted to, you could probably look at my searches and edit history, figure out how I was operating, and learn to write bullshit that evades all the search parameters I've fashioned so far. It's probably easier to just write concrete and informative articles in the first instance,
590:
The world of business is full of fascinating industrial processes, complicated legal regulations, and local resources, and frankly we'd love to learn about them from you. Just keep it in
English. Even if your business is not notable, if you make something very specialized and specific and are
302:
Businesses whose chief stock in trade is programming and services can be established in anonymous office buildings. Given the nature of their wares, they can be somewhat ephemeral; they can appear overnight and vanish equally quickly. Brick and mortar manufacturing plants, by contrast, have a
354:
software tools designed for these tasks probably do not warrant separate articles. Nobody without a professional stake in them is likely to have heard of them, or care about how they compare to one another. The same is true of many other crowded back-office software fields.
205:
says, "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Where the possibility of commercial
293:
outside the investment or dental industries. There are, of course, consumer electronics and software companies; these generally get the benefit of the doubt from me, to the extent that they serve a consumer customer base and sell tangible goods under their own brands.
444:), are nevertheless valuable for establishing notability. Being of interest to the general public is what counts for notability, though. The bottom line is: like your local newspaper, trade publications may serve a limited community of readers. General interest
422:
Likewise, there seem to be many trade awards, and few of them have any import in the outside world. There does seem to be something of a mutual admiration society at work in their bestowal. Trade awards are about as convincing evidence of notability as those
644:
abstractions about
Quality and Excellence, but in the trenches everybody knows how they really work. An article that "explains" such things by the self-chosen words of its promoters is inherently pushing a point of view, and as such does not belong here.
333:
creep in due to the sort of people who choose to edit
Knowledge (XXG). They are probably going to be busier on the Internet and more proficient with computers than most people are. Many will make their livings using computers, often in programming or
711:
I am probably revealing what ought to be a closely guarded trade secret here. My method in looking for spam is very, very simple. I start by searching for mainspace pages that contain phrases I've learned to associate with spam, such as,
266:. If the general public is likely to have heard of them, or they've achieved something that has the sort of historic significance so that the general public ought to be interested, they meet the test. If not, they should not be included.
575:
the specifics aren't there. It's deliberately evasive and uninformative: therefore, it's content that, though meaningful after a fashion, isn't the sort of thing that a reader is going to get much information out of. It is indeed
285:" to other businesses, I consider the odds are substantially less likely that general interest publications are interested in you or your wares. And trade publications are not good enough, either. There are several reasons why.
321:. 500 years from now, will this business or product be thought worthy of mention in an account of the development of the field? That's the sort of thing that sources should say to make a behind the scenes business notable.
418:
businesses listed there an encyclopedia subject, your inclusion on the list isn't the kind of independent notice that confers notability. Trade awards generally count very little towards encyclopedic notability.
338:
jobs. This means that IT department trivia may loom larger in their minds than is strictly warranted. "(S)ignificant or demonstrable effects" on culture, society or history means "outside the IT department".
565:
PLC. The company, with headquarters in
Ireland but most of its operations in the U.S., this year began calling itself a "world leader in creating and sustaining safe, comfortable and efficient environments."
481:
The management schools, and the pretense that business management is a real academic subject, do not encourage their victims to write well. The prose that comes from minds that have been malnourished on
213:
These presumptions actually flow from official content policies, which is why I don't consider it to be a bias or prejudice. To be an appropriate subject for a
Knowledge (XXG) article, a topic must be
273:
factories and shops is likelier to increase public awareness of the business in question. This too makes it likelier that independent, reliable sources can be found for an article about the business.
229:
Business owners who seek to promote their business often have conflicts of interest that prevent them from writing objectively about their subject. This is a source of many related issues.
387:
discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.
583:
deletion even if it is notable. You will also be judged on the readability of your prose; and if it reads like an advertisement or a press release, or appears to be written in
427:
your elementary school teacher made you give everyone of the opposite sex are convincing evidence of true love. Especially if they're given for "Innovation!" or "Excellence!"
546:
really perceiving their vacuousness. They may innocently imagine that people with real responsibilities normally speak and write that way. Still, it's all nonsense. As the
371:
and other search engines. Very simply, having a
Knowledge (XXG) article is a publicity coup, and is likely to rocket your firm to the top of search engine results. We're
201:
in all its forms, business articles are somewhat suspect. Businesses that fall within the presumption, very simply, do not get the benefit of a doubt from me. As the
616:
is sometimes used, and on account of its relative obscurity it sounds politer in the USA. This is where my feelings become quite hot. If you write vague, evasive,
411:
just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business.
102:
Non-consumer and tech service businesses are unlikely to be notable. Trade publications should be treated like local newspapers for the purpose of ascertaining
468:
can there be a living human being who believes anyone will be more willing to drop the $ 450 on their box because it’s described as a “storage solution”? Bah.
610:
Writing bullshit rather than English is almost guaranteed to make me want to delete your article, regardless of your business's notability. The Briticism
693:
say that this transistor belongs in "the archives of history", it belongs in an encyclopedia." That's what it takes to be an encyclopedia subject.
682:
124:"Bias" and "prejudice" have become tendentious terms. What I am saying here might be considered evidence of bias or prejudice. I prefer the term
870:
414:
Inclusion in "Top 100" lists of various sorts is especially unconvincing. Unless the list has the kind of significance to make each of the 99
636:
in me that you'd expect to feel if you found a dead mouse in a can of soda pop you'd just had a swig from. The bottom line is, that sort of
210:
exists, this kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance rises in importance, and should be considered a standard for inclusion.
53:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
54:
689:, a large and fairly familiar transistor that's been around since the Sixties. I was persuaded to say the article should be kept. " If
391:
your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the
430:
Obviously, there is a sliding scale here with no clear cutoff point. Some publications and awards serving a particular trade (e.g.
587:
rather than English, I will likely argue that the current article should be deleted even if a case for notability could be made.
825:
120:"After the spam article about my consulting business makes me an Internet millionaire, I'll be able to afford a pair of pants!"
815:
570:
Translation: The company makes locks, air-conditioning equipment and battery-powered golf cars, among many other things.
441:
303:
certain "long term historical" persistence and durability that service based and intellectual businesses do not have.
591:
famous in the field for it, we might be able to reference it in an article about the industry generally. If your text
603:. The more you try to make yourself look important and omnicompetent with vagueness, the more you actually look like
856:
309:. Finding that a topic is notable is exactly equal to a claim that the topic deserves a standalone article in an
254:
794:
781:
363:
Moreover, if your business involves publicity, computing, or the Internet, I presume that you are aware of the
364:
335:
58:
507:
318:
576:
531:
68:
893:
629:
621:
769:
597:
multinational information technology company providing software solutions in vanguard growth markets
263:
548:
393:
289:
likely that your business or your wares will receive coverage in truly independent sources —
835:
667:
46:
595:
you've met the first hurdle. But if you don't want to tell us more than that your business is a
432:
347:
343:
136:
Whatever word you choose to apply, I do use the following presumption as a personal yardstick in
612:
314:
556:
Coca-Cola Co. and General Motors Co. don't have to explain to the outside world what they make.
604:
523:
384:
372:
351:
330:
223:
202:
198:
103:
810:
to avoid any advice they attempt to present, and just avoid conflict of interest editing.
270:
140:
discussions about the notability of businesses, and urge others to adopt something similar:
678:
637:
542:
306:
282:
207:
137:
219:
599:, your text is going to the round file the same as all other such inane and meaningless
253:'s assumption: we "attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical
748:
562:
512:
483:
437:
424:
674:
670:. An article that is poor in facts can't be helped at all, and ought to be deleted.
663:
620:
laden prose that seems as if its chief purpose is to demonstrate fluency with current
238:
215:
197:, I tend to give articles the benefit of a doubt in favor of keeping them. But being
887:
873:
that was modified after the business person realized he'd put his foot in his mouth:
499:
491:
399:
194:
61:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
23:
708:
goods or services, don't say you "provide" them. Who do you think you're fooling?
527:
310:
116:
249:
The presumption mostly comes into play in considering notability. We begin with
503:
250:
125:
17:
845:
632:
of the underlying content, be warned. That kind of prose arouses the sort of
625:
368:
162:
Provides goods or services to other businesses rather than the general public.
495:
487:
764:
752:
617:
584:
473:
107:
849:
633:
686:
600:
516:
145:
I presume that a business or product is unlikely to be notable if it:
515:
and his operatives were apparently masters of this kind of sales
690:
522:
I consider this prose style to be an intentional breach of the
281:
If you are some kind of tech or service business selling your "
784:
was marketed as "too complicated for outsiders to understand."
88:
32:
795:"Dad, What Do You Do at Work? I'm a Leader in Active Safety"
747:
One criticism some make of Knowledge (XXG) is that we cover
150:
Relates to technology, software, computing, or the internet
649:
In today's complex and ever-changing world of technology
174:
I presume that a business is likely to be notable if it:
866:
857:
Should a Small Business have a Knowledge (XXG) article?
185:
Sells its manufactures to consumers under its own brand
76:
317:, any business or product needs to be examined from a
239:
something you'd expect to have an encyclopedia article
869:
also merits preservation. This is from a version of
673:
Ask yourself: is this business or product really an
526:policy. If it seems constructed to be deliberately
452:your industry is what makes a case for notability.
846:How to Get Your Business Listed in Knowledge (XXG)
530:, or make the obvious seem impressive, it is also
298:Notability is not temporary. Technology often is.
826:How to Get Your Company Listed on Knowledge (XXG)
350:may be worthy subjects for general articles, the
179:Manufactures tangible goods in its own facilities
379:Trade publications and awards aren't good enough
359:Knowledge (XXG) is not a free advertisement host
8:
683:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2N3055
836:How To Create Your Own Knowledge (XXG) Page
816:SEO: Can Knowledge (XXG) Help Your Business
871:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/RHUB
681:discussion contains a useful precedent:
647:And if your text contains passages like
640:probably ought to be deleted on sight.
115:
55:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
740:
106:. It hurts your case badly to write
7:
655:How should I write about a business?
486:paperbacks tends to be a morass of
385:notability guideline for businesses
344:supervision of computer programmers
325:The IT department is not the world
307:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia
156:Is a service or publicity business
59:thoroughly vetted by the community
31:
169:This has a flip side, of course:
132:The presumptions for and against
92:
36:
861:Small Business Search Marketing
329:We have long acknowledged that
660:non-neutral language by being
365:prominence Knowledge (XXG) has
348:automated updating of websites
245:A presumption, not a prejudice
1:
638:glib but incoherent gibberish
500:depersonalizing constructions
203:business notability guideline
579:, in our technical sense.
442:Great American Beer Festival
751:much more extensively than
378:
315:notability is not temporary
237:What turns a business into
910:
66:
668:about the business itself
216:independently verifiable
100:This page in a nutshell:
508:glittering generalities
336:information technology
277:A question of audience
121:
782:The investment method
770:"The Wrath of Heaven"
731:be fixed by editing.
624:, or to disguise the
409:Modern Dental Offices
319:geological time scale
138:Articles for Deletion
119:
57:, as it has not been
691:electronic engineers
675:encyclopedia subject
605:just another spammer
593:contains information
403:type. A mention in
373:not here to help you
208:conflict of interest
110:rather than English.
24:User:Ihcoyc/Business
820:Practical Ecommerce
685:, an article about
561:That isn't true of
549:Wall Street Journal
541:It is very hard to
462:The Wrath of Heaven
456:No bullshit, please
405:Blacksmithing Today
394:Wall Street Journal
104:business notability
793:James R. Hagerty,
448:your locality and
269:Similarly, owning
222:, and the subject
122:
824:Debra Mastalter,
814:Stephan Spencer,
543:assume good faith
224:covered neutrally
114:
113:
87:
86:
22:(Redirected from
901:
840:Marketing Sherpa
830:Marketing Sherpa
798:
791:
785:
779:
773:
762:
756:
745:
664:verifiable facts
490:, inappropriate
271:brick and mortar
220:reliable sources
96:
95:
89:
79:
40:
39:
33:
27:
909:
908:
904:
903:
902:
900:
899:
898:
884:
883:
807:
802:
801:
797:(Nov. 26, 2010)
792:
788:
780:
776:
763:
759:
746:
742:
737:
657:
577:patent nonsense
532:patent nonsense
458:
425:Valentine cards
381:
361:
331:inherent biases
327:
300:
279:
247:
235:
199:hostile to spam
134:
93:
83:
82:
75:
71:
63:
62:
51:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
907:
905:
897:
896:
886:
885:
882:
881:
864:
863:
853:
842:
832:
822:
806:
805:External links
803:
800:
799:
786:
774:
757:
749:Britney Spears
739:
738:
736:
733:
716:as a verb, or
656:
653:
572:
571:
567:
566:
563:Ingersoll-Rand
558:
557:
513:Bernard Madoff
484:management fad
479:
478:
477:
476:
464:
457:
454:
438:Pulitzer Prize
380:
377:
360:
357:
326:
323:
299:
296:
278:
275:
246:
243:
234:
233:The core issue
231:
191:
190:
189:
188:
182:
167:
166:
165:
164:
159:
153:
133:
130:
112:
111:
97:
85:
84:
81:
80:
72:
67:
64:
52:
43:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
906:
895:
892:
891:
889:
880:
876:
875:
874:
872:
868:
862:
858:
854:
851:
847:
844:Mike Svatek,
843:
841:
837:
833:
831:
827:
823:
821:
817:
813:
812:
811:
804:
796:
790:
787:
783:
778:
775:
772:
771:
766:
761:
758:
754:
750:
744:
741:
734:
732:
730:
729:
722:
719:
715:
709:
707:
706:
701:
700:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
671:
669:
666:
665:
654:
652:
650:
645:
641:
639:
635:
631:
630:banal truisms
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
608:
606:
602:
598:
594:
588:
586:
580:
578:
569:
568:
564:
560:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
550:
544:
539:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
518:
514:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:, deliberate
493:
489:
485:
475:
471:
470:
469:
465:
463:
460:
459:
455:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
428:
426:
420:
417:
412:
410:
406:
402:
401:
400:Business Week
396:
395:
388:
386:
376:
374:
370:
366:
358:
356:
353:
352:many separate
349:
345:
340:
337:
332:
324:
322:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
297:
295:
292:
286:
284:
276:
274:
272:
267:
265:
259:
256:
252:
244:
242:
240:
232:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
211:
209:
204:
200:
196:
186:
183:
180:
177:
176:
175:
172:
171:
170:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
147:
146:
143:
142:
141:
139:
131:
129:
127:
118:
109:
105:
101:
98:
91:
90:
78:
74:
73:
70:
65:
60:
56:
50:
48:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
877:
865:
860:
855:Matt McGee,
839:
834:Todd Mintz,
829:
819:
808:
789:
777:
768:
760:
743:
727:
726:
723:
717:
713:
710:
704:
703:
698:
697:
695:
672:
661:
658:
648:
646:
642:
611:
609:
596:
592:
589:
581:
573:
547:
540:
535:
521:
504:weasel words
492:abstractions
480:
466:
461:
449:
445:
431:
429:
421:
415:
413:
408:
404:
398:
392:
389:
383:The current
382:
362:
341:
328:
311:encyclopedia
305:
301:
290:
287:
280:
268:
260:
248:
236:
228:
212:
195:inclusionist
192:
184:
178:
173:
168:
161:
155:
149:
144:
135:
128:, myself.
123:
99:
44:
894:User essays
496:ambiguities
313:. Because
251:Jimmy Wales
126:presumption
45:This is an
18:User:Ihcoyc
626:triviality
536:paying for
524:neutrality
488:euphemisms
375:this way.
369:Google.com
342:While the
264:porn stars
255:notability
283:solutions
193:Being an
888:Category
765:Tim Bray
753:Socrates
718:solution
714:leverage
677:? This
662:rich in
618:buzzword
613:bollocks
585:bullshit
552:put it:
474:Tim Bray
346:and the
218:through
108:bullshit
69:Shortcut
850:YouTube
828:, from
818:, from
696:If you
634:disgust
528:obscure
450:outside
446:outside
433:Variety
687:2N3055
679:WP:AFD
601:patter
517:patter
77:WP:B2B
852:video
838:, at
735:Notes
416:other
181:; and
47:essay
16:<
867:This
705:rent
699:sell
622:TLAs
506:and
397:and
291:i.e.
226:.
158:; or
728:can
702:or
628:or
607:.
538:.
407:or
367:in
890::
859:,
848:,
767:,
519:.
502:,
498:,
472:-
440:,
436:,
241:?
187:.
152:;
49:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.