WikiProject iconCompanies Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Starbucks strike Edit

New stub: 2023 Starbucks strike ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Another Believer:. Thanks for the notice. Would this meet WP:LASTING? I can see editors bringing up that issue. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time will tell! Editors are welcome to share any concerns on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Beyond Now Edit

Hello, I'm wondering if there might be any editors here willing to review Draft:Beyond Now? It's been declined for a 2nd time for reading 'like an advertisement' however care has been taken to make sure all the content is plain and factual, covering only the history of the company and its link to the parent company (which has an existing page on Wikipedia), and current operations. All references are external, neutral and verifiable. Any feedback on what else needs to change would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Fifi Dee 23 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fifi Dee 23:, First, thanks for your COI disclosure. I am the second editor who declined based on the Advert criteria. I would have a look at WP:TONE, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:WTW. Being factual doesn't always mean it is included. And, if included, it still must be written in a style that is custom to an encyclopedia. Another issue is self-promotion which can be seen in the sentence - "Beyond Now is built on the heritage of Infonova, a BSS provider and subsidiary of BearingPoint." The reference used for that statement says nothing about Beyond Now and is also a press release. This means you wrote the statement with what you wanted it to say and not what the source says (and the source is not considered independent since it is a press release). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and guidelines, it's much appreciated. The BearingPoint reference I added was to illustrate the Infonova and BearingPoint connection, but I understand your point that it came from a press release and it's related to the parent company and not Beyond Now itself, so that has been removed. It's worth flagging that Beyond By BearingPoint IS Beyond Now (just the former name) so all those references are valid. As the article is so short I struggled a little bit to see any other major instances of impartiality. I changed 'serves customers' to 'operates' to neutralise the language a bit more there and replaced 'actively works' with 'works' so as not to introduce bias. I also replaced 'services many leading companies' with 'services telecommunications providers' to ensure a more neutral tone. When you have a moment, can you take another look and let me know if it's ok resubmit in its current state or if there are any more issues? Many thanks. Fifi Dee 23 (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are free to resubmit whenever you think it meets guidelines. The issue here is that you failed to take into account my entire reply. I gave you one example of a self-promotional issue which you fixed. You did nothing to address everything else. As a paid editor, you will need the competence to ensure the draft adheres to all policies and guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were good faith attempts to address everything else. I was asking for further specifics and I'm still learning. I hope that's apparent. Seeing as the WP:CIR page states: "articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop", I'll try again. Fifi Dee 23 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying that WP:CIR is required for a paid editor does not mean you are incompetent. The term isn't literal in that way. The specific bullet points of that essay is #2 and #4. As a paid editor, you are here for a single purpose which is to create a Wikipedia page for the person paying you. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a free comprehensive encyclopedia. While many of us will guide you through the process, we will not do the work for you (give you specifics). I did provide you with one example, but no one else will likely do the work for you as we are not being compensated and it is not our purpose for being here. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BP request Edit

Hi editors,

I'd made a request of the BP article, a small update noting a new rig, the sale of a refinery, and updating the list of board of directors. Lightoil was kind enough to give me the go-ahead to make the changes myself, but given extensive media coverage and conversations that happened when Arturo at BP followed Wikipedia's rules by suggesting edits to Wikipedia using discussion pages, I'm not comfortable making direct edits myself, even if given permission to do so. Would anyone here be willing to make those updates on my behalf? I'd really appreciate it! Vishal BP (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this was already addressed. If not, please let me know. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CNMall41: It has been partially addressed, with Lightoil giving me the go-ahead to make changes, but past discussions involving my colleague Arturo's contributions (also entirely on Talk pages/in the draft space) like this one and this one, as well as a long history of not directly editing the article, make me not want to take that step and directly edit. I'm really trying to keep everything as above board as possible and avoid those discussions in the future. Vishal BP (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an editor stated it was okay to make the change, especially for something uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged, then you can make the edit. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CNMall41: Understood. I appreciate the follow up! Vishal BP (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Markel Corporation#Requested move 23 June 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Markel Corporation#Requested move 23 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Frostly (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figure (company) Edit

Hello, WikiProject,

I was wondering if you business experts thought it was too soon for an article on this startup. They are in the product development phase, after raising millions of dollars but I'm not sure what the policy here is on startups like this one. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz:, I think the threshold for what we require for companies goes beyond what is here in this article. Technically, yes, a startup like this could have a Wikipedia page as long as it meets WP:NCORP, but that is hard to do for startups. The references must meet WP:ORGCRIT and if you take away the blogs, routine announcements (funding, etc.), there are really only a couple that come close (Wired, The Robb Report, and Fox). And, those three are full of quotes from the company so I do not see much support for this if it went to AfD. I also find it suspicious that the draft was declined but then moved to main space by an editor with only 60 edits. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz:, I see it was moved back to draft earlier today. The right move IMHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Scion (Crown Research Institute)#Requested move 4 July 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scion (Crown Research Institute)#Requested move 4 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC Edit

Your input is desired at a new Request for Comment at Template talk:Infobox company#Align the infobox?. ɱ (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

xAI (company) Edit

Any help expanding xAI (company) would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ADM History section Edit

Hi there, I'm a representative of ADM and I've been posting on the ADM Talk page about potential edits to the article's History section. Because I have a clear COI, I want to ensure that any changes to the article reflect clear community consensus. As such, I wanted to reach out to relevant WikiProjects to see if members could review my suggestions and offer feedback. Any thoughts you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ADMDane (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane:, please make sure you put the "request edit" template in the section where you are proposing edits. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi CNMall41. I'm trying to generate feedback from multiple editors about my proposed draft before I actually request its implementation. I'd especially like to hear from those who have been active on the ADM page in the past. Right now there's a single editor immediately responding to all "request edit" prompts, and they're closing discussion before other voices have a chance to comment. I'm not trying to shut them out, I just want to make sure there's actual community consensus driving these decisions. I would genuinely appreciate any feedback you might have, as I can see you're an experienced editor. ADMDane (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ADMDane: If you are referring to Spintendo, they are not just a single editor who doesn't reflect community consensus. They are using previous community consensus to review and opine on your requests and I have faith in their judgment. It does not require multiple editors to opine in a COI request. If you have a specific issue with what they declined, you can address that item specifically with them or use other avenues such as WP:3O or WP:RfC if you still disagree. I would advise that you focus on the actual comments to any decline and not the editor's behavior unless they are doing something that violates Wikipedia guidelines. I would also suggest keeping your edit requests brief so they are easier to review and implement. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate your insights into this, CNMall41. It’s good to get another perspective. I’ll think about how I can best proceed in that case. I have tried to respond directly to that editor's feedback and to address points of clarification they requested. Unfortunately, they have edited my Talk page posts so that other editors can't see those responses. That made me wary of continuing to engage with only them. ADMDane (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't be 3O, but RFC. It's not a one-on-one thing at this point. Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR Edit

I have nominated Cracker Barrel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on NCORP vs GNG and the use of NMUSIC #5 Edit

Although originally started to discuss idiosyncrasies around NMUSIC #5 which defines the notability of musical albums, there's a considerable debate around the interrelation between GNG vs NCORP. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Concerns_about_NBAND_#5 Graywalls (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credibility bot Edit

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sponsorships, awards and ratings Edit

Is there a present consensus on when sponsorships and awards should be listed? The lists I encounter are usually based on WP:PRIMARY sources or news coverage based on press-releases and I'm struggling to see how they improve articles (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LISTCRITERIA), but they're so prevalent that perhaps there are reasons why editors see them as valuable? Examples: 1xBet#Sponsors, NatWest#Sponsorship.

Many articles also have customer ratings similar to the Net promoter score, which may be measured by a third party, but there is no clear indication whether the third party is independent and the sourcing is typically non-independent. One example I removed is Special:Diff/1169434568.

My gut feeling is that they don't improve articles and shouldn't be present unless there's independent coverage indicating that the fact of the company being rated by customers or having a marketing partnership / awards is important and the circumstances warrant an in-depth coverage, but perhaps I see it over-zealously? PaulT2022 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if there has been a discussion anywhere that has garnered consensus. Personally, I remove any awards unless it is notable or necessary to show why the company is notable. Same with sponsorships as those seem more like an attempt at inherent notability. Few exceptions of course. As far as the example you provided, I would say that was 100% correct to remove. Adds no value to the page as no one is coming to Wikipedia to see how well the company fared in the "British Bank Awards" back in 2016. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raytheon Company requested move Edit

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Raytheon_Company#Requested_move_5_August_2023 about whether to move Raytheon Company to Raytheon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HabiJax, a Habitat for Humanity branch. Merger discussion Edit

There is currently a discussion to merge the Jacksonville, FL chapter into the main article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HabiJax Graywalls (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: Helium IT Edit

Hi WikiProject Companies editors, is anyone availiable and willing to review Draft:Helium_IT? I've created this as the company owner and would apreciate an impartial review before submitimg it. Many thnks in advance for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phil Pixie (talkcontribs)

@The Phil Pixie: It's completely unsourced, so it really can't be evaluated. However, random lists of vague services and quoting "missions" is often a way to plug in irrelevant marketing claims, and you'll need to clean up other marketing jargon like "handling extensive data volumes at pace, facilitating client insights". High-quality, reliable, third-party sources that discuss the company in depth are critical, otherwise this will be declined if submitted. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Sam, I'll bear that in mind and work on it more. Apreciate the guidence The Phil Pixie 12:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I approve an article if I find it good enough? Edit

Hi, as a migrant in Germany who is into start-ups I have sporadically in the past edited articles about German start-ups and I think I might have even created one or two articles. I was trying the other day to create an article about an insurance start-up that offers services in English, so that other migrants are able to find more information about it. For full disclosure, I currently work at the company. While trying to start the article I realized that there is one already in review status. This is the one: To me it looks good enough, compared with other articles in the English Wikipedia about German start-ups that I have seen or edited in the past. I don't even know how to approve it, but it is better than the one I would have created starting from scratch and I think it would be better to have than not have it. But I am not interested to die on this hill :D , nor have my editing rights rescinded, so I thought to ask here. To be clear, my employer did not ask me to approve the article or anything (I don't work in marketing/PR), I just found it by myself while trying to create it. ditsonis (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Allspark (company) Edit

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#What exactly happened on October 9, 2020, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 03:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Volt Technical Resources to Innova Solutions International Edit

There is a discussion here about moving Volt Technical Resources to Innova Solutions International. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ADM Dwayne Andreas section Edit

Hi there, this is Dane again, a representative of ADM. I received some very useful advice here a few weeks ago about a request I posted on the ADM Talk page. I've got a new post there about adding a subsection about Dwayne Andreas. So once again, I'm reaching out to relevant WikiProjects (including this one) hoping to generate feedback. ADMDane (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming staff in company articles Edit

Hi, I'm wondering what the guidance is for naming staff in company articles - in Goddard School, for example (article is about the company and franchise rather than a specific school). I'm aware that in school articles staff apart from the headteacher should not normally be mentioned (essay guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI). Is there a similar guideline for companies? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe WP:PST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY would apply. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article is downright terrible. 90% of it was name dropping and office location mentions. I redirected that to the founder's page as an alternative to deletion for blatant advertisement. Graywalls (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Granite Telecommunications Edit

I noticed Draft:Granite Telecommunications. From a search, it appears that there is enough out there for the company to meet notability guidelines. The draft has issues, but I think is salvageable. Thriley (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at the draft references and also did a quick search and I only see one article (from The Boston Globe) that would meet WP:ORGCRIT unless there is something I am missing. The Fortune and Forbes articles are from contributors. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do about articles that have only "product launch" sources and are thus adverts? Edit

E.g. the article Ticketbud is tagged with "advert" template, but it does accurately reflect what the source say.

But the issue is that sources are all "product launch" pieces. So information available in sources, when compiled to an article, will have characteristics of advertisements.

And what if the article isn't substantial (it's a stub) without that information? ACaseOfWednesdays (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not include everything that is included in reliable sources. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it adheres to other guidelines such as WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. I will take a quick look and see if there is any cleanup that can be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]