Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

WikiProjects to merge

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Merge of business and companies WikiProjects.

A WP:WikiProject is a group of people (i.e., not a subject area). Groups that get too small are not effective, so the folks at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council are trying to support a few friendly merges. Figuring out which groups have disappeared or become inactive is pretty easy, but sometimes finding the correct target is harder (e.g., is finance more like business or more like economics?). I think that the people watching this page might have some advice, and even if you don't really belong to any these groups, please consider helping us find the right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Inherent notability of dioceses

Just wondering with an AfD at the moment where it seems many editors believe dioceses of any religious organisation is effectively always/inherently notable what other editors views are on this. Should this be codified as policy and an exemption from WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't care if it's codified or not, but it's exasperating when people pull this kind of stuff out of thin air. I hope any closing admin ignores those !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is pulled out of thin air? If you review past AfDs, articles about dioceses are almost always kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK, Europe and Africa Malankara Orthodox Diocese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kochi Orthodox Diocese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Catholic Archeparchy of Istanbul, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Bungoma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Island). The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax. The idea that dioceses are generally kept is longstanding consensus, not made up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because other, notable dioceses were kept does not meet all dioceses are automatically kept without meeting sourcing requirements. I don't understand how you can use that argument at AfD. "Because we kept notable organisation a) we must therefore keep non-notable organisation b)" See how that's illogical? AusLondonder (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about “all”? The language we’re discussing on the other page has several provisos: major religious traditions, more than a handful of congregations, referenced in reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So Northern Diocese would fail those tests. AusLondonder (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So you think, and perhaps that will be the outcome, but that's for the AfD page. My concern there, not here, is that you appear to have a thick red line for Anglican Communion/not Anglican Communion, which would put Wikipedia on the side of POV. The best argument for deleting Northern Diocese is its small size, not whether it's in communion with Canterbury. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem arises when editors refuse to engage with sourcing (or lack thereof), and instead just repeat "but we always keep these articles!" I'm not involved in the underlying AfD here, but I've seen this happen many a time in AfDs about people who've received honours from the British government. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you brought it up here, I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Religious_organizations to align with the common outcomes for religious entities, or for an SNG to be proposed that memorializes the consensus outcomes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The unacknowledged reality is that when we make "notabilty" decisions (especially for GNG-dependent cases) other factors other factors are taken into account (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) For these cases a "finger on the scale" is given due to them also having a bit of an NGEO aspect, that they are upmerge destinations for individual churches, and also that the community desires to apply a slightly more lenient standard to non-profit organizations than the stringent one for typical for-profit businesses. Not so sure about trying to cover it in a SNG. As a sidebar, "inherent" is not the term used in SNG's, "presumed" is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Presumed is the word we use, but editors routinely misinterpret it as an irrebuttable presumption (i.e., inherent). If we want to go down that road, we should just change the wording and be honest about what we're doing. It's deeply confusing. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there may be some confustion here, the vast majority of religious organizations don't have dioceses. The title also doesn't seem to make sense, are you asking about the notability of dioceses or are you asking about the notability of religious organizations? Those are very different questions Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCHURCH - although somewhat confusing specifies that churches do not have to pass WP:NORG if they pass WP:GNG. Having taken part in the discussion and RFC that reworded WP:NORG it was agrred that there would be exceptions for churches, public schools, and sports teams so that they could just pass WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Does NCHURCH apply to dioceses though? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mention them. Perhaps it could be added if there is agreement, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

NCHURCH is not specific to any faith tradition so it wouldn't make sense to carve out an exception which would only benefit certain Christian groups (that would fairly be seen as favoritism and not NPOV), what would be equivalent levels of organization in other religions? Off the top of my head a diocese/bishopric in the LDS faith is a much smaller level of organization than in say the Catholic Church because Bishop (Latter Day Saints) is a much lower rank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why the discussion on the other page is focused on Middle judicatory as a more neutral term for this type of institution, although an editor decided to AfD it yesterday. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Middle judicatory still appears to only cover a single faith tradition, Christianity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how this could work. Especially if you tried to define it as a place in the religions hierarchy without "discriminating". So some of these may have many decades or centuries of history, officially defined long term borders borders that have have impact, have 10's or 100's of thousands of members, and many facilities within them which might meet ngeo but which were up merged. And other might be at the other end of the spectrum of those attributes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

On a general note topics don't inherit the notability of topics merged into them or created from them. A page on a diocese which is not independently notable can't be kept because its Cathedral (and/or any number of churches) is notable, only a page on the Cathedral (and/or any number of churches) can be justified. Same goes for notable Bishops, the diocese does not inherit the notability of its Bishops. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that. For example: Imagine that you have a fair bit of information about the subdivisions of a group, and you want to WP:SPLIT them off the main article. That would normally be okay. Similarly, if you've got several notable bishops, and you want to merge them up to a larger article, then that would normally be okay, too. If the resulting articles happen to get called "____ Diocese", then No harm, no foul. IMO an article about Northern Diocese, with a well-sourced section about the notable bishops or the notable buildings, is not obviously worse for Wikipedia than multiple separate articles about the bishops or buildings.

As a general rule, I find that when someone says there aren't any sources about a regional business/organization, they haven't checked local newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If by no harm no foul you mean IAR then sure, there are going to be exceptions to any rule you care to name. Otherwise the principles that notability is not inherited or inherent and that multiple non-notable topics can't be added together to create a notable one have been established by long standing consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

NLIST says otherwise - we don't expect the grouping of common notable topics to necessarily show separate notability. Of course, that grouping has to a natural, non interpretive selection, and while that would allow for primary sources to aid in establishing a background to the grouping, there would still be caution about including too much primary or promotional material.

Whether a grouping of the individually notable religious leaders of a specific church body make sense to group into an article about the church makes sense or not, that likely depends on the scenario. Masem (t) 22:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, list articles are an important exception. I should have said "with the exception of stand alone lists" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't mean to invoke WP:IAR. I mean to invoke Wikipedia:Notability ("Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article") and Wikipedia:Merging. Perhaps a concrete example would help. Imagine:

• There is a religious organization which has three separately notable people (Alice, Bob, Chris), some non-notable people (David, Eve, Frank), three separately notable buildings (First Church, Main Street Church, Church of St Cecil and All the Angels) and some non-notable buildings (a lot of them).
• You are a Wikipedia editor. You want to be Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia about this subject. Do you:
  1. Write six separate articles, with a moderate amount of repetition, because those are the only three people and only three buildings that qualify for separate articles?
  2. Write one larger article covering all six separately notable subjects, an occasional brief mention of relevant non-notable subjects ("After many years, Alice retired and was briefly succeeded by David, who quit in a pay dispute. He was succeeded by Bob, about whom..."), and giving WP:DUE weight and WP:Balancing aspects according to their prominence in the reliable sources?

I don't think that either of those options conflict with any of our notability rules. If you believe that editors are not allowed to use their discretion to merge separate articles about, e.g., three separately notable church buildings into a single larger non-list article, such as Church buildings in Smallville or Historic buildings belonging to the Holy Church unless someone can find a source proving the notability of the larger subject, then your complaint is really with WP:N and WP:MERGE, not with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We have that discetion, but not when none of the topics are notable, as the guideline currently states "The fact that a religious building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. However, it is possible that both the building and the institution are notable independently from each other – in which case, a combined article about the institution and the building is an option." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What that sentence means is:

• Just because you get to have an article about the notable Church of St Cecil and All the Angels building doesn't mean you get to have a second article about the non-notable Parish of St Cecil and All the Angels organization.

What some editors seem to be saying is:

• You might get to have articles about multiple notable ____ in this group, but you definitely can't MERGE those into a single article about the group (containing mostly information about the notable ____) unless you can prove that the group is notable separately from its constituent parts.

Or, to put it more simply: Y One article about the Northern Diocese is better than N multiple stubs about all the individually notable people and places within that organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

(Assuming, of course, that there would actually be multiple stubs that would be replaced by such a merge. Another example would be merging away the Northern Diocese, if there's not much to say about it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

As it stands we have not established that there are individually notable people and places within that organization, until someone does that just seems needlessly speculative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Speculative in the specific example (only John Fenwick (bishop) exists at the moment), but it's very relevant to the question of whether this guideline does an adequate job of telling editors that upmerging is okay, and (if not) how we might go about expressing this idea to them.

@North8000 has a good example below with school districts, which I think could be generalized to government agencies (e.g., local fire agency → local city or regional fire agency). On the commercial side, I think that an example of merging CEO + business(es) + products to a single article would be something we would like to encourage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we merge John Fenwick (bishop) into the article for the dioceses? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting that doing so would not violate any notability guidelines, and that this guideline should be clear that merging is a good way to deal with some subjects.

Whether a merge is the best way to handle that specific group articles is up to the editors who work on those articles. I am speaking of the general principle, rather than recommending action in the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats WP:OWN. Groups of editors can't do that, they have to be open to anyones participation in those articles and they must follow wider community consensus. The policy and guideline based opionion of someone who has never edited the article counts for the exact same as someone who has done signficant work on the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who participates in those articles == the editors who work on those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

They can participate in community consensuses which impact an article without ever editing it, those who edit an article don't get any special ownership of it or the ability to make decisions about for example its notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In any event, that is bit off of the context here. Which was saying that in practice, consideration is given being an up-merge destination for wp:notable or probable-wp:notable facilities. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that in practice we've given consideration to inherited notability. In my experience with practice we've done the opposite, often requring more of a topic notability wise because its had other ones merged into it not less. A whole bunch of merges and/or moves often gives people the idea that there are games being played and no real underlying notability when in fact it is there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is an aspect of NCREATIVE and I think also under NPROF that if a person who is otherwise non notable wrote or created multiple notable works, a page for that person to link all those works is reasonable if there is no other possible groups that encompasses them all. It's reasonable that this same principle should apply to what NCORP covers, which would include churches, though care would still be required to avoid excessive use of primaey sourcing to establish the basic details of that top level company or organization. — Masem (t) 17:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We ran through this with NBOOKS earlier this year and came to the same conclusion. Books can get merged up to a single article about a series/author/other reasonable grouping.

NSONGS works on the same principle by default. Songs get merged up to a single article about a song, instead of specific versions of a song being separated from the song, or only one version being included and the song in general being declared non-notable. The article is at White Christmas (song), not at White Christmas as sung by Bing Crosby, even though his version is by far the most popular. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good parallel example is a school district, which IMO are often kept even when they don't slam-dunk meet any wp:notability criteria. IMO this is because of combination of these notability-related areas:

• They are legally defined-on-the-map governmental district
• They includes many schools, many of which could meet (or be edge-case) wp:notability separately, and is often an upmerge destination for those articles.
• The headquarters building is a place
• There is an immense amount of coverage related to them, albiet probably not coverage which meets GNG criteria.
• They are a large (in every respect), high impact entity

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We have unambigously rejected the inherent notability of school districts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about them being "inherently" notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My apologies then, I misunderstood your comment in the context of the OP about the inherent notability of dioceses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This guideline and WP:NTEAM

• This guideline: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams."
• WP:NTEAM: "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline."

It's not clear to me why sports teams does not fall under NORG and I wonder if NORG should be re-written to say they do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In part this “exemption” was made because many sports (and their teams) already had their own SNGs that pre-existed the writing of this guideline. We didn’t want to get into “turf wars” with the sports SNGs.

That said, I do think it makes sense to amend the guidance to say that if there isn’t a pre-existing SNG that covers a sports organization (teams, leagues, etc) then WP:ORG covers it. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. And if a specific SNG should stray from the GNG too much, that discussion can be held elsewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting also that the lead says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams."

Educational institutions and religions get a mention at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate_criteria_for_specific_types_of_organizations, but there doesn't seem to be any further mention of sports teams anywhere, like a link to WP:NTEAM. My reading is that both guidelines boils down to "If you meet GNG, you're probably good", but there can be devil in the details. We could also link Category:Wikipedia notability (sports and games). Not sure if it matters, but it seems that several of the relevant SNG:s there are essays. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In part this “exemption” was made because many sports (and their teams) already had their own SNGs that pre-existed the writing of this guideline: No, NSPORTS deferred to NORG before. It used to read:

"This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

However, NORG was later unilaterally changed to exclude sports. Was never clear to me why. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 29 § Notability of sports teams. —Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the rationale was because at the time, NSPORTS did cover sports clubs. But since that has changed and this hasn't been updated, I see no issue at all with changing NORG to delete the "except sports teams" reference. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, NSPORTS did not cover clubs at the time. The proposal to rewrite NCORP started on 18 February 2018. The version of NSPORTS at the time deferred to NORG for teams. Only after the close of the NORG discussion was NSPORTS changed to refer to GNG for teams instead of NORG. —Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

My interptetation is that, when the much tighter NORG sourcing requirements were introduced in 2018, it was decided to leave sports teams with more permissive (GNG-like) sourcing requirements. I think any move to change that will require a new RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it much tighter in practice etc (I can't say I have much of an overview on this)? Are deletions per "meets GNG but not NORG" a common occurrence? My own approach is generally that if you have shown GNG for your subject, then you are good. If the subject is, say, a WP:POLITICIAN who's never been elected, that doesn't matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I think the main difference is that NCORP requires at least two sources, each of which discusses the subject "directly and in depth" while meeting each of the other enumerated requirements and which are "evaluated separately and independently of each other". GNG (and WP:NBASIC) are more flexible in how significant coverage may be established. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• When the more restrictive provisions of NCORP were adopted, it was expressly negotiated and agreed that educational institutions, churches and sports teams were excluded and would remain governed by GNG. I would oppose extending the NCORP restrictions to sports teams. Any such proposal would require a community-wide RfC with notice to all of the impacted sports projects. Cbl62 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I started a discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Time for an incremental start on a "big fix" here? at nsports to try to have even GNG implemented for sports (including teams) (which it isn't). I think that it would a bad idea to make it even stricter for sports teams. Also it would create an overlap. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Aren't all sports teams already subject to WP:GNG per WP:NTEAM (provided they're not covered under a WP:NSPORT sub-SNG? Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are… To me, the question is whether these should be shifted to the slightly stricter ORG, or whether GNG is enough. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm digressing (see the link in my previous post) but GNG (or even anything near-GNG) is not being implemented on GNG-dependent sports topics. But other areas (e.g seasons and individuals) are even sketchier than teams. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability of academic societies

I've just been down a rabbit-hole connected to WP:NPROF criterion 2 ("The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. ... Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies ...") and WP:NONPROFIT, poking around in their Talk page archives and doing some internet hunting. There don't seem to be any agreed on criteria for determining whether a given award falls into the "certain awards" category, but I'm posting here because many academic societies don't meet NONPROFIT Criterion 2 ("The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization"), even when they're highly regarded in their fields. That means that many awards that are prestigious in their fields would be excluded in determining whether an academic is an NPROF. Despite the unsatisfied WP:N requirement, many of these academic societies and awards nonetheless have WP pages, perhaps sourced only via WP:ABOUTSELF. The two most relevant discussions that I found for notability of academic societies (here and here) had no consensus. The academic societies with which I'm most familiar all publish or sponsor peer-reviewed research journals and books, and I'm wondering if that might be a consideration in determining whether an academic society is notable. It seems strange that WP's notability guidelines don't have a place for societies that play a significant role in the advancement of knowledge in diverse fields. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to answer this in the abstract without any examples. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, here are a couple of examples. I tried to improve the article for statistician Kanti Mardia. Among the reasons that he qualifies as an NPROF is that he was awarded a Wilks Memorial Award from the American Statistical Association. That award is prestigious in statistics, and the ASA is highly regarded in statistics, but neither the Wilks article nor the ASA article currently has evidence of notability (maybe they can be improved, I haven't tried). I'd bet that the same is true for many of the other awards/societies in this List of mathematics awards. I'm now thinking of improving the article for Lee Shulman. Among the reasons that he's an NPROF is that he's past president of the American Educational Research Association and was also awarded their Distinguished Contributions to Research in Education Award. That award is prestigious in educational research, and the AERA is highly regarded in its field, but the award has no WP article (and I'm not sure that I can find significant coverage of it to create an article for it) and the AERA article currently has no evidence of notability (though I've found one independent publication discussing its early history and will add that).

In all of these cases, there are plenty of brief mentions of the awards and societies on university websites (e.g., noting that a professor has won the award or has been elected president of the society) and sometimes on the websites of other societies in the field (an example for Mardia), and there may be brief news mentions (e.g., about research presented at AERA's annual conference, but where the focus is on the research not the AERA). But none of these are the significant coverage needed to establish their notability. As best I can tell from the NPROF and NORG talk page arcihves, WP editors are relying on their knowledge of the field to determine prestige/notability, contrary to WP:NOR. It can be hard to search for significant coverage of the societies, as a search on their name pulls up a lot of info from the society itself, from its journals, etc. Both societies publish or sponsor peer-reviewed research journals (e.g., here and here). Does this help? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem with notability of academic societies is that when people publish in-depth articles about the societies, of a type that would normally contribute to GNG-notabilty, they often publish them in non-independent journals, or might somehow be considered non-independent themselves. For example, for your example of the American Statistical Association, Google Scholar finds huge numbers of papers with "American Statistical Association" in their title, most of which appear in-depth and reliably published but in JASA, The American Statistician, and Chance, all of which are ASA journals. One exception, "The International Year Of Statistics, The American Statistical Association, And A New Collaboration" [1], was written by the then-current ASA president. I had to dig deep to finally find "The American Statistical Association and the US Census: A Shared History" (2019, doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01318.x) in a journal of the Royal Statistical Society (also by a president of the ASA but over 20 years earlier than this article was published) and "The American Statistical Association: Opportunities for the Future" [2] in a Swedish statistics journal (by yet another president of the ASA, some six years after she was president). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Some related questions recently arose at Talk:Barrett Watten, where there was a prize from the American Comparative Literature Association. It was helpful in that case to look at the List of Highly Prestigious Awards from the National Research Council [3]. I am not saying that being on this list is necessary for a pass of NPROF C2, but I think having a prize from this list is probably sufficient. They do not list the ASA, so it does not solve the immediate problem, although I do tend to think that this is a major academic society. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It is the main society for statisticians in the US. If if it difficult for our notability criteria to recognize its notability, then to me that indicates that there is a problem with our notability criteria, not with its notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why I raised the issue. It's the same thing with the AERA, which is the primary educational research society in the US (and I'll do some more hunting to see if I can find additional independent RSs to establish its notability). For some academic society articles, sources for notability exist but haven't been cited (e.g., the article on the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards some of the Nobel prizes). @David Eppstein, thank you for finding some sources that can establish the ASA's notability. I don't know to what extent this will turn out to be the case for other academic societies and whether it's mostly a matter of digging to find them; WP lists of learned societies indicate that there are hundreds of articles about them, and I don't know how complete those lists are. I guess I jumped the gun in saying "many academic societies don't meet NONPROFIT Criterion 2," and should have instead said that for the academic society articles that I've looked at, the articles don't currently substantiate that they're notable.

@Russ Woodroofe, thanks for pointing out that NRC list of prestigious awards, though it definitely isn't comprehensive. I wonder how the NRC created that list. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

ASA has gotten a fair amount of coverage for some of its statements. Like this whole article in Undark Magazine. I don't think it's unlikely that the ASA already meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Since we are more forgiving in terms of the notability of academic journals, it's possible that the fastest approach, in the case of a society that both sponsors a journal and gives an award, is to write an article about the journal, and add a couple of sentences saying something like "J. Imp. Things is sponsored by the Important Academic Society. IAS is dedicated to the scholarly understanding of importance and is known for their biennial presentation of the Award of Academic Importance, which has been awarded over the years to luminaries such as Bob Bright and Iggy Illustrious, as well as to Mel Middling."

FOO, I don't know if you remember the Donna Strickland thing, but when she won the Nobel Prize for physics in 2018, she was one of a handful of scientists who won that prize before a Wikipedia article was created. There was drama in the media about how we must be sexist. (Since 2009, she is the only female Nobel scientist for whom we had no article; in Wikipedia's earliest days, of course, the percentages would have been higher for everyone.)

As the story reached me, there had been three attempts to create an article; the first two were deleted because of WP:COPYVIO rules, and a suspicious person would see symptoms attributable to WP:UPE in all three attempts. User:Bradv/Strickland incident (worth reading) indicates that some editors thought that sine she had been president of Optica (society), then everyone ought to have known that she was notable.

One of the end results here is that I think editors need these little hints – a redirect to a journal, a sentence that just happens to use the same words as the guideline, etc. – so that we can make these decisions faster, more consistently, and with more confidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as I noted, some of the qualifications in the NPROF guideline rely on the notability of academic societies. This occurs explicitly in two places (the one I quoted, and an academic might also qualify by having been "president of a notable national or international scholarly society"), and it's implied in a third ("The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor"). I'm guessing that a sizeable number of articles on academics rely on those qualifications, and if Important Academic Society is only referenced on the WP articles of journals it publishes/sponsors, then we might also need to delete a slew of articles on academics. Maybe it's possible to find independent RSs with significant coverage for most of these societies, and it's only a matter of finding them and improving their articles. I have no way of knowing that; I only know that for the articles I've read on highly respected societies, their notability generally hasn't been demonstrated.

I wasn't familiar with the Donna Strickland WP issue. I read the User:Bradv/Strickland incident essay, and it underscored for me another challenge with NPROF articles: many of the sources are primary and non-independent, and if secondary sources are available, they may be SPS (depending on how the definition of SPS is finally resolved) and thus not allowed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We might start by asking the NPROF folks whether their intention with "president of a notable national or international scholarly society" means "president of a national or international scholarly society that qualifies for a separate Wikipedia article under the modern and very restrictive NCORP rules" or if it means "president of a national or international scholarly society that NPROF editors deem to be important to the academic world" or something else.

This wording was installed by @David Eppstein on 20 August 2008. At the time, it linked to WP:N (NB: not the GNG, but the whole page); that link has since been removed (it was the second such link in the same sentence). It did not refer to this guideline, but if you're curious, here's the version that was in place at that time. NCORP was much shorter, used a weak definition of secondary, and pretty much restated the GNG in a somewhat muddled form. It did not mention academic societies but probably would have been interpreted as covering them unless some other SNG claimed to cover them. (My own first edit to this guideline would happen the following week.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if a society appears to us to be notable, it needs to have received independent coverage. Departing from this principle (creating an encyclopedia article on the society) will amount to secondary coverage of the subject. Such an outcome would be inappropriate for us as a tertiary work of knowledge. I think this has to apply no matter the level of significance that we think the organisation has attained. The sources identified by David Eppstein, above, for the ASA perhaps show that any truly influential academic society will likely have received some sort of coverage. Identifying coverage will always be difficult for editors because these organisations publish many works and are mentioned in many more. Editors therefore have a lot of sources to sift through.

I'm not convinced about relaxing our notability requirements for academic organisations. Many disciplines have a paid-entry, self-managed regional or national organisation. We could end up having an article on every organisation, regardless of its actual impact, provided that its membership was sufficiently large. Just as not every member of the organisation will be notable, so might the organisation itself not be. arcticocean ■ 10:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. "regardless of its actual impact, provided that its membership was sufficiently large". You are being self-contradictory. Consideration of the size of an organization is exactly the opposite of "regardless of its actual impact". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the whole of what I said, not what suits you. Membership size is not a measure of impact, that is to say of the achievements of an organisation. Only organisations that have achieved something notable should have an article. I still have no idea why you believe that organisation size is something notable. arcticocean ■ 17:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I am reading what you said. When you said Only organisations that have achieved something notable should have an article, you contradicted your earlier statement about no matter the level of significance that we think the organisation has attained. "Achieving something notable" would be a case of the organization attaining a level of significance" in our opinion.

I think what you meant to write is something like "Only organizations that have achieved attention from the media or similarly independent sources should have an article", with the subtext that this is more likely to happen if they do something that the rest of the world [i.e., not Wikipedia editors] believe is [ordinary dictionary definition] notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by "achieved something notable" I meant notable enough to have been independently reported, documented, studied, etc. Sorry if I could have made my meaning clearer. arcticocean ■ 19:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How can something appear to be notable without receiving independent coverage? That seems contradictory, notability can not exist separately from independent reliable coverage (notability is after all more or less just answering the question "Has the topic been the subject of enough significant independent reliable coverage to make a stand alone article about"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. arcticocean ■ 17:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok... I think I see what you're saying now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Now you are reasoning circularly. "Notability", for the purposes of Wikipedia, is whatever we deem sufficient for having an article. Saying "notability can not exist separately from independent reliable coverage" is not a justification for using independent reliable coverage, nor an argument for anything at all; it is merely a restatement of one of the multiple criteria that we use for assessing notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I read that sentence as meaning "We [the current Wikipedia editors] have decided not to have a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article about any subject for which we cannot find any Wikipedia:Independent sources [except for when we have decided the opposite, e.g., most of NPROF]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arcticocean, your first couple of sentences are factually wrong. See Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. Writing a tiny stub that contains only simple, routine facts – something like The Important Academic Society is an academic society. It was founded in 1924. The president is Alice Expert." – does not amount to secondary coverage no matter what the sources are. A secondary source requires intellectual transformation of prior information. This sort of simple repetition is not intellectual transformation. Simple, non-transformative repetition of basic facts is characteristic of tertiary sources, which is what Wikipedia aims to be. See also WP:LINKSINACHAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to concede that. I don't know that it changes the broader point (please tell me should you think otherwise) that an academic organisation’s existence does not make it notable, nor does its size. The general policy position is that independent coverage of the organisation has to be demonstrated, and NORG should not alter this by saying, e.g., any sufficiently large national academic org will be notable. Why? We'd simply end up with articles about organisations that had not done anything worthy of inclusion. This isn't like NPROF where we recognise that it is difficult to tell when a single academic has become notable. No such difficulties exist with organisations. arcticocean ■ 19:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, such difficulties have been amply demonstrated above. The difficulty is primarily not so much with the existence or reliability of in-depth secondary sources, but that the way those sources are published falls afoul of our requirement of independence, separately from their reliability and depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Atlantic306 says in a different discussion above that government-run schools, some religious organizations (e.g., churches, not a club), and sports teams are exempt from NCORP but not GNG, which would require an independent source, though not WP:SIRS-level ones. Orgs that happen to be musical organizations are covered by WP:NBAND. Products that happen to be books are covered by WP:NBOOKS. In principle, there's no reason why organizations that happen to be academic could not be covered by another guideline, and if it is covered by another guideline, there's no reason why the criteria would be set by this one instead of that one – which means it could, (though it probably wouldn't) choose to ignore the value of independent sources.

WP:BESTSOURCES (a policy, but not one that currently says what you'd expect from that shortcut) says "In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is, however, somewhat aspirational (and I say that as the person who wrote that sentence and led the discussion that adopted it).

I'm more concerned about your assertion that we're trying to exclude organizations that have not done anything worthy of inclusion. That's not what our notability rules are intended to value. Our rules are set up to include subjects that are Famous for being famous. They are set up to exclude subjects that quietly do important work.

Every sewage agency saves lives every year; some of them, at least in the developed world, might qualify for an article. But the article will largely say: "This is a sewage agency. It's this many years old. It has a budget." It won't say anything about its most valuable contribution to the world: By processing sewage in accordance with the usual standards, it has prevented multiple outbreaks of deadly waterborne diseases. People are healthier, happier, wealthier, and alive-r as the result of this agency's work.

I mention this because it's important to remember that literally saving people's lives – something we'd all say is a worthy endeavor – does not make a subject "worthy of inclusion". But getting paid to sing a song, or to chase a ball around a field, often does, as does being the victim of certain crimes. We do not have articles about "subjects that are worthy". We have articles about "subjects that get in the newspaper, even if they're completely unworthy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)