Talk:The Friday Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As it now stands, this article seems as if it has serious problems with Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, templates I had previously inserted to address these problems were removed without discussion and without fixing the article to correct the problems that led to these concerns. I would love to be proven wrong, but the article as it now stands seems to be little more than an advertisement, and it does not cite a single reputable source. Please discuss here how the article could be made compliant, or change it so that it complies with Wikipedia policies. Please do not remove the templates again unless some real change or discussion has happened. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create this page, but I am involved with The Friday Project and have contributed facts to the page. It seems to me that the sources cited are from The Guardian and The Observer - which I think are pretty decent sources. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are. Either way, I'm not sure it can be considered an advert when it wasn't originally posted by us. Have updated the footnotes so they are displayed on the page now - sorry, that was down to my lack of understanding of Wikipedia code - Alex @TFP

The added citations were still coded wrongly, so I fixed them and then removed the template about there being a lack of citations. The other two templates still stand, as those problems have not yet been addressed or discussed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you with the neutrality one, by virtue of the fact that I'm not neutral. That's for others to decide. Perhaps those who posted the original article, presumably believing TFP to be important enough. As for notability, it seems to me that the multiple citations in newspapers and trade magazines (easily findable on the WWW or Lexus Nexus), the fact that the company (in those articles, and others) is noted as being the first mainstream (and public) publishing house to specialise in its chosen area would make it qualify as notable under the following Wikipedia guideline: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself."

As for the other notability criteria: the music arm has published the Fitness To Practice album that has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the neologism items were merged in from another article having been added to Wikipedia by subscribers to The Friday Thing which has been the subject of (etc) - including those footnoted.

I'm afraid I don't understand the other objections. I'd be happy to try to understand if you could explain. Having said that - again - I'm not responsible for the article, but working for the company I am concerned that there is question as to its notability.

- Alex

These questions are important ones, and as an obviously non-neutral observer, you have rightly stated that you are not capable of deciding them. Nor can I decide the issue on my own, which is why I'm trying to attract more neutral observers to discuss the issue by putting templates on the article page. Also, a company being mentioned in multiple non-trivial articles is not necessarily enough for notability, it has to be judged in the context of other things. My brother has also been mentioned in multiple non-trivial articles, but he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, a prestigious blog has called this article an advertisement.[1] There is a real concern about keeping advertisements off Wikipedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, the prestigious blog has called a site called The Front List (which we work with, but are totally independent from) an advertisment. I can't see any suggestion in the blog, or in the comments that we are in any way using Wikipedia as an advertisement. Again, we didn't post the article. I'm happy to sit back and wait for the Wiki process to run its course, but even a cursory Google would convince you that we're one of the most talked about (in the formal book trade press, and also in the mainstream media) new publishers in the UK, by virtue of our emphasis on talent spotting on the web. I'm finding this whole thing a bit odd to be honest. I'll wait to see if anyone agrees with you about the ad thing. - A

It's not me that you have to convince. It's Wikipedians in general that you need to convince. Just wait for the process to do what it does best. A discussion between one admitted non-neutral observer and one neutral observer is not going to accomplish anything. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)