This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why has this article suddenly started going back and forth being tagged as not meeting notability guidelines? The Primary Criterion: The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: [press releases and works with trivial coverage] One source is the company's About page, which while not a secondary source, obviously qualifies as an authoritative source for the material that is cited. The other source is an independent magazine. This Wikipedia article has existed since 2006 without any concern of notability being raised, and I find it odd that it would suddenly be a cause of concern. How about SixApart? That article has no secondary sources, why is it not flagged? Djnafai 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

"One source is the company's About page [...] obviously qualifies as an authoritative source for the material that is cited"

It is not a good practice to cite official web sites/etc (see WP:V, WP:RS), but that is really irrelevant to notability. Notability is established, first and foremost, by independent recognition of the subject. The general notability criterion is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (notability guideline), the others merely complement it. Note "significant", "reliable sources" and "independent".

"since 2006 without any concern of notability", "How about SixApart?"

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so the level of policy enforcement is inconsistent. -- intgr ^#%@! 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not able to go through these at the moment and assess notability for each one, but Googling for reviews of Expression Engine certainly seems to turn up a lot, although I didn't find anything offhand that I'd consider well-established print media. I just started a new job using EE and came over here to learn more about it, but obviously my anecdotal experience doesn't matter. More to the point, from the Google results it seems plenty of people are using EE, or interested in using EE, or at least bothered to review EE. Cheers, PhilipR 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per PhilipR, there clearly are independent secondary sources here. The problem is that the article doesn't reliably cite them. This notability argument wouldn't survive an AfD; I've changed it to refimprove. --- tqbf 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. -- intgr [talk] 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article has no reliable third party sources. The company web pages are primary sources and the blogs are not considered reliable. Please read wp:notability and wp:sources. Providing good sources usually establishes notability. Dethlock99 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are two books cited as references published by Packt, I think your edit is in error, at minimum with respect to notability. 65.120.164.226 (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EllisLab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112015050/http://mojomotor.com:80/blog/entry/introducing_mojomotor to http://mojomotor.com/blog/entry/introducing_mojomotor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply