How about this?

I'm looking at the recent issue of Inc. magazine, where they rank the Top 500 privately-held companies, in terms of three-year revenue growth.

The #1 company is Senior Whole Health. Plenty of independent reliable sources citing and describing the company, but no Wikipedia article.

And #3 on the list is The Snack Factory. Over 18,000% growth in revenues and plenty of sources, but no Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia Review's web host, HostGator, is #20 on the list, and they claim to host over 500,000 sites on their servers, with plenty of source mentions, but no Wikipedia article.

Another firm that caught my eye was iCrossing (#125). They've been in business since 1998, have annual revenue of $110 million, and employ 550 people. With well over 100 sources mentioning them in 2008 alone, still no Wikipedia article.

But, the Pandarosa Recording Company (not found on the Inc. 500, or any other list of anything, for that matter)? They got their Wikipedia article, thanks to this dedicated Wikipedian! Wait, what do you know, Pandarosa's founder has one Google news mention, where he opines that "If I had $100, I would: invest it in my business, Pandarosa Recording Co., or save it for college."

I've tried to explain, time and again, how Wikipedia suffers because it is run by teenagers who don't understand the relevance and impact of the business world. Furthermore, they speedily eject from their ranks adults with education and experience who could easily help the project. But, apparently, Jimbo and company seem to like it that way. I could have written all kinds of articles similar to National Fuel Gas, but Jimbo tossed me out of his collective farm because I had the nerve to want to research and write some of those articles for $49 to $99.

I could make the same post about how many poems and novels from the 18th and 19th century, which probably have far more reliable sources for them, are not on Wikipedia, but I instead spend my time putting together articles.

The standard "so fix it" would apply. Anyone can complain that a topic area is missing.

You do know who you're talking to, right? The guy who was banned from WP for making articles like Arch Coal. One would almost think that we don't _want_ articles about companies that are definitely notable just because they're not "household names" (since, you know, they don't make household products)

User:Pirhopsi? "...brothers John P. Thompson and Joseph A. Thompson"? Google finds this: "Sloppy Joe takes us on an adventure". I don't think Joe is saving that $100 for college.

NE2: Proxying for a banned user.

As for what Ottava said... nevermind, it's just too stupid to respond to.

The problem is that people who write Wikipedia write about what interests them, not what is objectively notable. Sometimes the two coincide, but not always. The effects of this on notability of "episodes and characters" has become the subject of major controversy.

I have a list of Chemical & Engineering News top 50 chemical companies in my magazine archives. I'm certain that not all 50 have articles on Wikipedia, though probably many of them do. Someone has to read the list or another source, and systematically go through it 1 to 50 to write 50 articles, or however many are needed that don't already exist. It's time-consuming, tedious, and it requires half a brain (unlike vandal-fightiing, which is tiring, tedious and completely mindless). So nobody does it. It's unfortunate that perhaps the only person smart enough to conceive articles in this fashion is also dumb enough to get himself permanently banned. Before you call foul, because I know you will, I'll just say this - you almost got out of jail free last month, but you were sockpuppeting with "A Poor Kid in Africa" while the unban discussion was taking place! Nice try, buddy. You don't want to be unbanned, and you're not going to be unbanned. You don't want to improve the encyclopedia; you want to destroy it. What a waste.

But I see your approach, and I wish for readers' good that people would adopt similar approaches to make systematic lists of needed articles. That was within the purview of Wikiprojects, but with the rapid, uncontrolled expansion of Wikipedia, most Wikiprojects are dead or useless.

Whereas Mzoli's, now THERE is your world-recognized name. If you ate there, you should start an article. The clowns who clean up after elephants at the circus (which would be you) will be along eventually to make sure the product of you mental digression doesn't stink too much.

As you know, I don't believe that the "rapid uncontrolled expansion" (horrors ) of wikipedia harms a thing. Nobody's going to buckle down and write articles on major chemical corporations because you prohibit them from writing about their favorite garage-band or episode of Dr. Who. They just won't edit at all.

With the major caveat that Wikipedia should not be a repository of personal information on livings persons that people don't want to be collected (BLP being prime example) I don't see any reason in the world why it couldn't combine all the functions of the yellow pages, the white pages, mapquest, The Oxford English Dictionary, The Oxford Book of English Verse, and so on. It's already eaten Debrett's Peerage and Baronetcy with hardly a belch, so why are people who can learn via Wikipedia that the 2nd Earl of Donkeyborough died in infancy in 1751, so incensed when somebody wants to write about the local hardware store? Or maybe even about the businesses they use or even (generally) the street they live on, which is something that (unlike the dead baby Earl) might be useful for something?

The think about using "notability" which is based on publishing, which now includes electronic publishing, is that that puts the whole thing upon the same shifting sand of notability that people are complaining about when they invoke {cite needed} in the FIRST place. Having it one step removed does not solve the problem-- it just sweeps it under the rug. So let us do away with it completely. Cites are needed only when people disagree on facts. And even then the matter cannot be decided by a "consensus" ala WP. It needs a judge with integrity.

Shalom, I'm sorry to call foul, but I have to, since you've vomited up a falsehood or two there.

"The Poor Kid in Africa" wasn't and isn't me. I had nothing to do with its creation or activity. So, nice try, yourself.

As for not wanting to be unbanned and not wanting to improve the encyclopedia? Well, I offered to demonstrate with 100 highly productive edits that I am quite capable of improving the encyclopedia if I were to be unbanned, which was my eventual request after Jimbo suggested that it should happen. The proposal was rejected, though, by (I think) about a 43-to-21 margin, or so.

So, if you want to talk about "a waste", why don't you clean up the vomit you spilled here and go talk to the 43 Wikipediots who said "no" to my improving the encyclopedia?

Greg

I know who I am talking to, and I know that many banned users just make sock puppets and continue.

All he is doing is dragging attention to himself so that if the article was later made, you can connect it back to a sock.




Hey! Don't mock my subject area! Lord Donkeyborough was a good man and deserves that article!