This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article 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
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a
stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
A much better start! Don't forget to add references; they will help establish notability and are critical for writing a Wikipedia-worthy article. I did a quick Google search and found some good 3rd party references; try using those to keep a
neutral point of view. Good luck!
Vicenarian (
talk)
17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm always curious about these issues, having added a lot to the Dendreon page. An encyclopedia is not the yellow pages or the Thomas Directory or a public notice venue. It is hard to know where this stub will go but from looking at Alpine Electronics page, the immediate cue is puffery-this is a legal term for untestable claims ( too empty to be shown to be false ). Boasts, comparisons to nothing ( " costs less [ than what????]" ), etc are good cues. Unless their marketing plan creates a notable event, simply hyping a product is IMO not notable. Even "balance" doesn't accomplish anything if the events aren't of an "encyclopedic" nature ( whatever that means is up to Wiki but you can ask if you would find it in a print encyclopedia )
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk)
18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The notability guideline here is
WP:CORP. As long as the article for a company is written in encyclopedic tone and cites sufficient third-party, verifiable sources, it should qualify under said guideline. And remember, it's
potential we're looking for.
Vicenarian (
talk)
18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article 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
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a
stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
A much better start! Don't forget to add references; they will help establish notability and are critical for writing a Wikipedia-worthy article. I did a quick Google search and found some good 3rd party references; try using those to keep a
neutral point of view. Good luck!
Vicenarian (
talk)
17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm always curious about these issues, having added a lot to the Dendreon page. An encyclopedia is not the yellow pages or the Thomas Directory or a public notice venue. It is hard to know where this stub will go but from looking at Alpine Electronics page, the immediate cue is puffery-this is a legal term for untestable claims ( too empty to be shown to be false ). Boasts, comparisons to nothing ( " costs less [ than what????]" ), etc are good cues. Unless their marketing plan creates a notable event, simply hyping a product is IMO not notable. Even "balance" doesn't accomplish anything if the events aren't of an "encyclopedic" nature ( whatever that means is up to Wiki but you can ask if you would find it in a print encyclopedia )
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk)
18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The notability guideline here is
WP:CORP. As long as the article for a company is written in encyclopedic tone and cites sufficient third-party, verifiable sources, it should qualify under said guideline. And remember, it's
potential we're looking for.
Vicenarian (
talk)
18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply