Talk:Blackblot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fixed the notability issue per the wikipedia guidelines. Spinacia (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
TexMurphy - if you question or have questions about the notability then lets discuss. Spinacia (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- What notability? I don't see any sources for that claim. - TexMurphy (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You mean notability like that found in the Louise_Hoffsten and aipmm, or the type of notability created via a list of references as found Spyderco and similar pages? I can find many such examples. I read the notability page and I believe the article is in full compliance. If you believe otherwise then be specific, otherwise suspicions are insufficient to merit the tag. I will personaly restore the tag if there is a specific issue of notability.Spinacia (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Please read this first. I'm addressing your article and the lack of notability and sources. The primary criterion for inclusion is "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". I believe your article fails this. - TexMurphy (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is easy and I can provide external sources. However, I can find numerous articles on Wikipedia that are similar to this article and there is no question about notation. You did not provide references to your article about Louise_Hoffsten nor did you take note of the examples I gave. I will always comply with Wikipedia rules by I expect impartiality from any other member. Spinacia (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can provide sources then please do so. The fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia that has questionable notability or sourcing is not the subject here, that's why I linked this for you to read. If you have problems with other articles, take it up there. - TexMurphy (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I will begin to compile the sources and references.Spinacia (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like searching for this company on Google just gives back the announcements that were written by the PR department of Blackblot or its business allies. The closest thing I can find off the search for "Blackblot-Product Management Expertise" (after manually screening the 67 results) is this article, which is not written by Blackblot, but written by a customer: this still doesn't satisfy the "independent of the subject" part. I'm going to add back the notability tag. Lisatwo (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- PR links will always come first on Google since their companies pay for high ranking. Notability is not the issue but references.84.109.35.21 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, so notability is an issue. To establish notability you often need sources though. There is still no source to back up the statement "used by thousands of product management professionals" or any claim of notability. Most sources listed merely mentions or links to the Blackblot site, nothing more. I'm taking it to AfD if notability cannot be established. - TexMurphy (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are seeking a supposedly "independent" source that would have had access to the company sales records and no company would allow that unless it was compelled by governmental regulators to do so. You are clearly unfamiliar with the new, emerging and evolving world of high-tech product management where the majority of work is virtually all self-published sources (other than a handful of debatable books). Therefore, not everything found in Wikipedia should have outside sources. Notability is not an issue here and will be challenged since it is a fact that thousands of copies of PMTK were actually sold and that can be easily proven using sales records. Spinacia (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, so notability is an issue. To establish notability you often need sources though. There is still no source to back up the statement "used by thousands of product management professionals" or any claim of notability. Most sources listed merely mentions or links to the Blackblot site, nothing more. I'm taking it to AfD if notability cannot be established. - TexMurphy (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- PR links will always come first on Google since their companies pay for high ranking. Notability is not the issue but references.84.109.35.21 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like searching for this company on Google just gives back the announcements that were written by the PR department of Blackblot or its business allies. The closest thing I can find off the search for "Blackblot-Product Management Expertise" (after manually screening the 67 results) is this article, which is not written by Blackblot, but written by a customer: this still doesn't satisfy the "independent of the subject" part. I'm going to add back the notability tag. Lisatwo (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I will begin to compile the sources and references.Spinacia (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you can provide sources then please do so. The fact that there are other articles on Wikipedia that has questionable notability or sourcing is not the subject here, that's why I linked this for you to read. If you have problems with other articles, take it up there. - TexMurphy (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is easy and I can provide external sources. However, I can find numerous articles on Wikipedia that are similar to this article and there is no question about notation. You did not provide references to your article about Louise_Hoffsten nor did you take note of the examples I gave. I will always comply with Wikipedia rules by I expect impartiality from any other member. Spinacia (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read this first. I'm addressing your article and the lack of notability and sources. The primary criterion for inclusion is "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". I believe your article fails this. - TexMurphy (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-
