Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Notability of Political parties

This is something that has been bothering me for quite a while ever since I started tackling Ethiopia-related topics: when is a political party notable? Many of the rules of thumb which present themselves at first thought don't always work in certain countries with a single-party dominant system -- like Ethiopia:

• Having candidates. Many opposition parties find the process of running for office so hostile to their participation that they end up boycotting elections.
• Significant news coverage. Single-party dominant systems also control the local press; as a result, coverage of opposition parties tend to be spotty. Relying on the international press to fill the gap (BBC, New York Times, etc.) only helps to a very limited extent, since the news media are plagued with a systemic bias against coverage in many of these countries. (Having limited news space, which will a given news source cover: an event in their home country, or one in a distant place like Ethiopia?)
• COI of the opposition. It is something of a misperception that opposition politicians in these countries are all saintly, respectable types: some are as much scumbag politicians as those in the dominant party, & have started their own political organization to get their "fair share" of the graft. (And then, there are people in the ruling party who are just respectable & devoted to improving conditions as the best members of the opposition.) Leaders & members of opposition parties squabble, split their organizations because of injured pride, create transient groups with grandiloquent names or promise new strategies which never materialize.
• Then there is also the issue of what I'd like to call "the Trotskyist disease": some political movements have a tendency to splinter so much due to internal dynamics that their constituent parties never achieve a significant size or influence anywhere except within the movement -- maybe. I don't have a clear answer why this characterizes the Trotskyist left (although I have my suspicions), but when one considers that all of the political activists who are self-described followers of Leon Trotsky throughout the world are probably 100,000 at any time, & that there are dozens of Trotskyite groups squabbling with other over ideological purity (as well as power within the movement), one has to honestly wonder if any of them are notable.
• And then there is the "one size fits all" issue. A definition of what a notable political organization in, say, Ethiopia would probably not work in the U.K. or the U.S., where, quite honestly, if a political party can't or won't submit any candidates it probably isn't notable.

I don't have answer for this problem, & have been mostly working around it in my little corner of Wikipedia -- to be precise, writing articles only when I can find reliable information about a group while leaving redlinks untouched about more dubious groups. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be eager to hear them. -- llywrch (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus over the past few years has been if the party has a member in national office, it's notable. If the party has never elected a candidate, it's likely not notable but it still might be for other reasons, such as Official Monster Raving Loony Party and other parties that get press because of their name, their history, their personalities, and other reasons besides their efforts to get their candidates into office. Local parties and national parties with only local success tend to fare somewhere in between in merge- and deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The minimum standard for political parties is the same as the minimum standard for anything else: You Must Have Sources.

If you have good sources for a party that has never won an election, then it's still notable. If you somehow (obviously in some alternate universe ;-) manage to identify a party that wins elections without getting any media coverage about the party, then it's not notable. Notability requires someone (and not someone who's part of the 'thing' in question) to have taken notice of the thing.

Notability doesn't require a lot of coverage, but there must be some third-party sources. You can fill in the gaps from primary sources and first-party sources when you're writing the article (=the subject of WP:V and WP:NPOV), but if no third-party sources exist, then you shouldn't be writing the article in the first place (=the subject of WP:N and WP:CORP -- and WP:AFD, naturally).

From your comments above, it sounds like you're walking the appropriate line there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you don't have candidates, then although you may class yourself as a party to gain the benefits that this may give, you are in fact a lobbying group, and in countries like UK, such organizations may actually be set up legally as charities. Reprieve for instance is clearly a political organisation.

Also some political systems do not allow "parties" as would be seen in a Western democracy, and often there are no elections for them to have candidates for.

One could argue that you are a notable party when you have opponents. An organization that provides healthcare has competitors in fundraising, but no meaningful opposition. It may make political statements, such as "we want more money to help sick kids", bu that is not as party.

That leads to a mildly objective test that you are a notable party when you have notable organizations that oppose you on political grounds. Being banned by a government may prevent you from having candidates, but proves you are both notable and a party, even if your polices and methods might be seen as unacceptable by the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small businesses

The world is filled with small businesses that are not part of a chain or corporation, like family-owned restaurants, corner groceries, liquor stores, ice cream parlors, antique shops, consignment shops, motels, hair stylists, pharmacies, auto repair garages, and the like. Their clientele is generally from a radius of a few miles at the most, and beyond that, few if any have heard of therm

Put together with what is already on Wikipedia, an article about one of these would seem really incongruous. But truth is, many of these do have two or more separate independent reliable sources, which does technically meet the GNG.

It is not uncommon when reading a newspaper, whether that of a major city, small town, or a community (all of which are RS) to find articles on these types of businesses, discussing details from the business's founding, to changes it has undergone, to other non-trivial facts.

How do people feel about the notability of such a business? Sebwite (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We feel, apparently, that WP:ORG requires the existence of at least one independent reliable source outside of the local business' local area:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is some risk of systemic bias here. Regional news organisations are more likely to take note of larger chains with sophisticated publicity operations. However, I think that a small business that has been around 100 years and become a significant part of local social history is likely to get something recorded in a regional secondary source anyway, with more detail available from primary sources and local sources, and be perfectly defensible at AfD. So I cautiously support the rule as it stands. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Being around for 100 years doesn't make it notable, nor is such a business truly defensible if the only information/sourcing is from purely local sources. I think it is important to note that any such business must have third-party coverage, and such coverage should not be solely from its local/area media outlets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrooulf, your concern about systemic bias is already addressed:

Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

It happens that a larger organization is more likely, on average, to have been "noted" (=notability), to have had a cultural impact, etc., but we have firmly and consistently rejected any size-discrimination proposals (like "Anything grossing US$1 million is inherently notable"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Haynes manuals

A couple of editors have deleted this example of 'secondary sources' from the footnotes:

• All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion.

I don't really understand the objections in the edit summaries that question the validity of the example. Haynes Manuals seem to me to be reliable published works, to use the word of the guideline. Should we restore this example, which was there since since 2005?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because basically all cars have Haynes Manuals, and a single manual being written about a car is not enough to claim notability of the car. It also doesn't enhance the guideline, and instead makes it both to explicit and too permissive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your objection now - and I disagree with it. Firstly, it satisfies the depth of coverage criterion: it is a lengthy book about one model of car, and it is based on an independent strip-down and rebuild of the car. Secondly, it satisfies the reliability criterion: Haynes writes manuals it believes it can sell, so it won't make one for a car so unpopular its production line was closed in the first week. Thirdly, it is not a primary source: Haynes doesn't build or market the cars.

Has there been trouble at an AFD because of a non-notable car that had a Haynes Manual?

Examples serve to enhance a guideline, because many people, including competent editors, have word blindness for detailed rules, yet understand when they see a couple of examples.

The original situation of 7 or 8 examples was over the top, but for many years we have had just two. I strongly dispute that a single manual is not enough to claim notability. Instead it is a pretty clear example of the way a typical Wikipedian thinks about inclusion and deletion.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrothulf, even if this is an ideal secondary source, the phrasing was wrong. It implies that the existence of the Haynes manual is absolute proof of notability (but Chilton manuals are irrelevant). Compare "All cars with Haynes Manuals are notable" to "Microsoft Word is notable because there are all these sources about it..."

Additionally, I don't think that we need to have a magic-notability solution for 0.013% of Wikipedia's articles. There are fewer than 500 Haynes Manuals, and more than three million Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not meant to be a magic solution. It is meant for illustration. Please restore it or propose better phrasing. How about: "The publication of a Haynes Manual shows that a car notable."?

The existence of the Haynes manual is, to borrow your words, absolute proof of notability, isn't it?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A single manual does not automatically make anything notable and such a claim is completely incorrect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been there since a few months after WP:ORG was written. What has changed? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Closer scrutiny of everything, I suspect. Most of Wikipedia's early guidelines were quite poorly written.

IMO, no single source is absolute proof of notability; if a Haynes manual were truly the only source ever about a model of a car, then I would not consider the car to be worth a separate article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates Infobox geopolitical organization and Infobox organization

There is a discussion if the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization, redirecting now to the Template:Infobox country should be redirected to Template:Infobox organization. or if not, how to define in which cases it is appropriate to use the one or another infoboxes. You opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

National member associations of a notable international organization.

Currently there is a series of AfDs, around a dozen, on member national societies of the International Amateur Radio Union. The argument is made that independent reliable sources have not been found for some (or many) of the individual member societies, and that therefore they are not sufficiently notable for a separate article. However there apparently existed a past consensus to create stubs for member societies instead of maintaining, at the IARU article, external links to the official web sites of these member organizations, and, structurally and for the efficiency and consistency of the developing project, this would seem to be easier to set up and maintain. Then, if news in reliable sources is found relating to each individual national associate, there is a place to put this text. The general alternative proposed would be a return to the list in the IARU article, with possible creation of stubs or articles only when there is independent coverage found.

WP:CLUB suggests that decisions be made top-down, at the article for the parent organization; the alternative, that the decision is made with each member, will require consideration of many, many AfDs, with continued need for review as, then, a source is found that some editor considers of sufficiently independent reliability, the editor (who can't be IP) creates the article, or creates it with no sourcing, which will happen, and each article will follow a different format, seems to be inefficient and unnecessarily disruptive.

The GNG implies that each independent article must be supported by evidence of independent notability. However, the issue I'm raising is one of project organization and efficiency. It is highly likely that with adequate access to local sources ("local" here means "national," not just some town newspaper), and especially to older sources in many different languages (Some of these associations have been in existence for more than 80 years), independent sources could be found, but if stubs do not exist, the possibility that material from these sources would find its way into an article will be much lower. GNG does not seem to contemplate the existence of stubs for topics of some kind of "inherent" or "inherited" notability, all linked to and supported by an article on the notable parent organization. The information in these stubs would frequently come from official web sites. So the question is if being a national affiliate (not a local club!) of a notable international organization is sufficient to justify a stub, consisting of noncontroversial information about the topic, taken from less independent sources, as is commonly done with organizations.

According to the International Amateur Radio Union, there were 162 national member societies of the IARU. There is a list of the member societies in that article, if anyone wants to look at the individual articles. Some have some flesh, some don't. Some were never created, apparently.

I'd think that a decision that could be supported by the community should be made at a higher level than individual member society AfDs, and only if the higher-level decision is to not allow these stubs would it then be appropriate to discuss the individual ones (perhaps through a mass AfD of the ones without independent sources, though merge would be better). I'd like to see views and opinions on this, TIA. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment as a nominator of many of these individual stubs, my exhaustive searches have failed to reveal significant coverage for many of these. people have claimed coverage exists and that gnews does not cover pre 1990 nor foreign news, both claims are false, yet these people fail to provide evidence of coverage. as a compromise, wouldn't it be better to simply but in a table in International Amateur Radio Union and have key details of each member org. many of these stubs have zero chance of expansion due to very limited third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to LibStar for responding here. The question I asked assumes that sources have not been found to establish independent notability for the individual societies, i.e., what LibStar asserts.
• The answer to the question from LibStar is, No, it was prior consensus that it was not better to use the table for anything other than a link to the stub (or expanded article in some cases) on the individual member society. This allows treating each member society equally in the article on the IARU, with little maintenance required there.
• Due to the national character of these associations, it is highly unlikely that they actually would escape notice in national media in their nations, but they have been organized, often for more than fifty years, and much mention would not be easily accessible at all. If the stubs exist, there is an open door to any editor, including unregistered ones, to add information as found, and if it is not sourced, sources can be requested or the additional material removed. My proposal is to rationalize prior consensus on the basis of requirements for verifiable stubs being lower than for developed articles. They generally consist solely of noncontroversial information that would be permitted in the international association article on the basis of official information (such as the IARU web site or national association web sites). Then, as additional sourced detail appears, there is a place already in existence for editors to put it. It would not fit in the IARU table. --Abd (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've needed some motivation to copyedit WP:CLUB, which has been seriously neglected and badly written for a long time. Please read the new, more intelligible (I hope), less self-contradictory version, and let me know if you have any questions.

For the general proposal:

As far as WP:ORG is concerned, no independent sources means no article, no matter what. However, a National chapters of the International Amateur Radio Union (or three, for the three regions) could easily be supported by the same sources that demonstrate the notability of the IARU itself. I would far rather see the little bits of verifiable information in these stubs WP:PRESERVEd in a list-of-affiliates article (complete with a full set of redirects) than to see verifiable information lost. Merging (and later splitting, if sources appear) doesn't have to go through AfD, so it also has the advantage of being a low-overhead process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted most of the changes WhatamIdoing made to the guideline, as premature. When guidelines are possibly self-contradictory, it is a sign that there is no clear community consensus on them, and that exceptions may exist. WhatamIdoing made these changes, then immediately cited the changed guideline, calling it "directions" in his summary, as if it were an authoritative policy. Not yet. There is a fundamental issue here that may be difficult to resolve, and I, for one, won't know the outcome unless there has been much more consideration. --Abd (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing : merge and redirect. There are dozens of lists at Wikipedia that work like that. It is easy for editors and readers, and doesn't distract us with AfDs. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I left a note beginning "Please read the directions" because of the astonishing level of misinformation on some of those AfDs. For example, an editor asserted "Non-profit organizations operating on national level are notable per WP:CLUB" -- without, apparently, discovering that CLUB contains two criteria, and that both must be met. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are already lists in this case. Does the earlier and very common exception to independent notability guidelines still exist? Originally, building the project, many articles started as unsourced stubs, which then served to seed the formation of deeper articles, and many still survive, still awaiting further work. In an article on an organization, once notability is established for the organization, it is routine to consider as "verifiable" non-controversial information about the organization cited from the organization's own official web site or other organizational publications. If not for the sheer volume of the information, that information, for the member societies, could be in the IARU article. The information would still overwhelm a list article.
• In this case, I'm proposing a kind of stub that is really just the same information that would be allowed in the IARU article, if the IARU were smaller, if it had only a few national societies. The information is notable due to IARU notability, and it is routinely considered verifiable. Can what amount to stubs, not showing independent notability, be used in lieu of creating a large, cumbersome list article? Further, the stubs exist, that's the status quo.
• I absolutely agree with Merge in lieu of Deletion, it is almost always a better decision than Delete, where a suitable merge target exists or can be created.
• However, the solution of having a List with individual articles splitting off as needed requires continual review and adjustment, with debate over notability arising through AfD, with no accrued improvement in the usability of the encyclopedia.
• The IARU situation is just an example that I came across. The discussion is general, and that's why it was brought here. I'm not proposing that a specific decision be made here, only that there is an obvious guideline issue. Is the interpretation of the GNG as absolutely prohibiting stub solutions damaging the project, requiring an inferior solution that consumes more editorial labor?
• I opened a discussion of the specific case at Talk:International Amateur Radio Union. --Abd (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the individual article AfDs be cancelled/suspended/put on hold pending a resolution of the overarching issue. Is there a specific procedure for doing so? Roger (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The usual process is for the nominator to withdraw the AfD, and then re-file if needed later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's possible that the nominator will withdraw them without prejudice, but it would be more efficient if they were somehow "suspended." A speedy close that could later be reversed by the closing admin would do it. The point would be to temporarily shut down debate on specific notability, which might prove to be moot in two cases, and therefore a waste of time, and one of these is likely:
  1. It's decided (probably at the IARU article with support here) to allow the stubs, perhaps under narrow restrictions to satisfy the intent of notability guidelines.
  2. It's decided not to allow them, and then consensus to merge is implemented. I doubt that a redirect would be AfD'd for one of these stubs. Under this scenario, some individual societies might merit separate articles, but if there remained controversy over specific societies, and one of them is a current AfD, that AfD could then be re-opened, thus not wasting the existing comments. But, again, here, the likely result would not be a Delete but a Merge, since it would be silly to Delete a more notable society while Keeping (with Merge) a less notable one.
  3. There is the third case, to be complete: the situation continues to be handled chaotically, with erratic results.
• Because WP:NOTSILLY is neither a policy nor a guideline, I'm not placing bets. --Abd (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Abd, you ask, "Does the earlier and very common exception to independent notability guidelines still exist?" What "earlier and very common exception" are you talking about?
2. Information is never WP:Notable: Information may be WP:DUE. Subjects can be WP:Notable. Notability is not inherited: if IARU is notable (a claim I grant), it does not follow that the local chapter, or payroll department, or current president is WP:Notable. WP:Notable = qualifies for a separate article. Non-notable = does not qualify for a separate article.
3. Having 150 stubs requires just as much "continual review and adjustment" as having 150 sections in a single article.
4. WP:ORG is not the WP:GNG.

Importantly, please remember that all of the notability guidelines require only that independent, reliable sources exist, somewhere in the world, in any language, in any format. Notability does not require a single source to be WP:CITEd anywhere in any article. (As a practical matter, if a couple of good sources are already cited, then it tends to reduce the number of needless trips to AfD.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. Your numbering:

1. What "earlier and very common exception"? How The Project was Built. More so earlier on and less so now, editors, including anonymous editors, created stubs that simply identified the topic of an article, providing a seed crystal for further growth. If the issue of notability comes up, many of these stubs survive for a long time based on "common knowledge." Usually, if they are truly notable, sources are eventually found. However, note that in the present case, it isn't true that there are no sources; rather, the available sources are not generally fully independent, but are often self-published by the societies or the IARU. These sources actually show the existence, sometimes, of independent reliable source, a good example might be at [1], but those sources may not be readily available (or may not even be available at all any more).
2. Information is never WP:Notable Technically correct. However, the basic issue is whether or not proof of independent notability is absolutely required for stubs to be used as a means of classifying verifiable information. The theory here would be something like: IARU is notable, and it exists only as a coordinating and representative body for all these member societies. The member societies are notable for two reasons: they are recognized by the IARU as members, and they operate nationally, they are not merely "chapters." They have member chapters, and nobody is proposing articles for those, as far as I've seen, though it is possible that one does become sufficiently notable for some reason. It is the intersection of "international recognition" and "national scope" that could allow the stubs, in cases where there are too many such member societies to be appropriate for coverage only in the international association article or in a "List of" article, and this decision would be made, per the guidelines, at the international association article.
3. Having 150 stubs requires just as much "continual review and adjustment" as having 150 sections in a single article. No, because if it is determined that the stubs are acceptable, there is no need to "continually review and adjust" with regard to Keep/Delete/Merge of separate articles. They would be established, in the present case. AfDs, if filed at all, would likely be speedy closed. Each one of the articles would have a note referring to the overall decision on its Talk page. The matter would be relatively settled. There would be a clearly defined place to put additional sourced information as it becomes available. There would be no debate over how much local detail is allowed in the "List of" article, that article, if it is used, would just be a pile of links to individual society articles. It was, in fact, decided before that this was more efficient, it was implemented (largely) and that decision was, in my view, correct.
4. WP:ORG is not the WP:GNG. Correct. And they are both guidelines, not policies. We are discussing WP:ORG, with reference to WP:GNG.

It is the nature of these member societies that it is highly likely that reliable sources exist, somewhere. Some of them have been operating for more than eighty years, and they started at a time when their activities would have been of substantial local interest. Sometimes they have been outlawed for times, and surely this was noticed. Some of them have "royal charters" or the like; again, it is almost impossible that this escaped coverage in reliable sources, yet a fair amount of effort was put into searching for this without immediate success, including by the nominator of these AfDs (who is not here being criticized, except possibly for filing so many AfDs at once, and the nominator commendably stopped that on request). I will be suggesting, I suspect, after sufficient discussion, a special guideline allowing stubs to be used for national affiliates of notable international organizations, simply fleshing out what is possible already, a bit more complete than what is in the present guideline. This would be documenting actual practice, at least as far as the IARU members is concerned. And it would avoid future unnecessary debate at AfD. --Abd (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Apparently, consensus changed on that point. ORG requires some kind of evidence that independent sources have noticed the organization. These sources do not have to be conveniently available, but there must be some plausible reason for editors to believe that the sources exist.
2. Yes, ORG actually rejects the idea of inherited notability. Only those organizations that independently meet the requirements of ORG qualify for separate articles.
3. No, it doesn't. If you merge the four sentences at Club de Radioaficionados de Guatemala into a larger article that includes the four or five sentences written about most of the affiliates, you don't have to do anything at all with it, ever again -- just like if the stub is kept, you wouldn't have to do anything at all with the stub. Almost every claim you make about the stubs is equally true of the merge: You could still put "a note referring to the overall decision on its Talk page. The matter would be relatively settled. There would be a clearly defined place to put additional sourced information as it becomes available." WP:SPLIT is well-understood page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there seems to be confusion here. These are not individual chapters, these are member societies. There is a distinct difference. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is correct. As an example, consider Royal_Union_of_Belgian_Radio_Amateurs. This is a national society. It appears to have ten individual chapters, see page with individual chapter locations. Some national associations may have only one chapter, such as Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society, perhaps because Hong Kong is a small place and members can gather together in a single location. The discussion here is only of national societies, not "chapters." You cannot form a local club ("chapter") and gain IARU recognition, apparently. Only national societies may affiliate, only one per nation.
• The U.S. member society of the IARU is the American Radio Relay League, and it has a search engine to find an "ARRL affiliated club near you," and the page has a display that claims 2123 such clubs. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• as an analogy, ANSI is a member of ISO, but it is not a chapter of ISO, the USA is a member of the UN, it is not a chapter of the UN. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Relationship of criteria

Here's one of the two changes that Abd reverted:

Old version

New version

The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. However, the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research. Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated.

The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet the sourcing requirements of these alternate criteria, and/or the primary criteria, and/or the general notability guideline. An organization that meets none of these three groups of criteria is not notable.

My goals are:

1. To educate the readers that there are three independent sets of criteria;
2. To forestall any misunderstandings that all three must be met (of the "well, you met the alternate criteria, but you didn't meet GNG, so I !vote delete" type);
3. To remind all the people that didn't read the top of the page that organizations that have never received any sort of notice are not notable.

Does anyone object to the substance of the changes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My only objection is that I feel the company should meet WP:N. No criteria here should override that. You can't claim a company meets the "alternate criteria" if there are no reliable sources to back that up, which should then meet WP:N. Otherwise, looks like a good rewording. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Noble goals, but the problem is that in clarifying the guideline, the general case has indeed been more adequately explained, but possible exceptions have been definitively excluded, and that, in fact, should never be done in guidelines, which document existing practice, so that editors can know what to expect, but do not define and control it. It is the apparent rigidity of the exclusion that caused me to revert this change, and not some idea that the change is entirely incorrect. I'll suggest alternate language later if nobody else does.

By the way, good work, WhatamIdoing. --Abd (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, have you read the alternate criteria? Unlike (apparently) some of the other SNGs, there's nothing on this page that supports zero-source notability claims.

Abd, all guidelines should be (and are) implemented with 'common sense and the occasional exception'. We don't have to restate that fact in every section. Additionally, I think that the 'apparent rigidity' describes actual practice in AfDs fairly well. Perhaps, though, if most of this works for you, you would restore anything that you don't object to, so we could easily identify and focus on the specific area of disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is making "zero-source" notability claims, that's a red herring. It's correct that we don't have to "mention the fact," but we should avoid categorical statements that appear to rule out any exceptions, because these can and will be cited in AfDs and elsewhere, adding to confusion. I see many AfDs closed contrary to the assertion of this rigid rule, but that, of course, could merely be a reflection of the chaotic nature of AfD. As to restoring what I don't object to, that's my plan, and I'll do it ASAP. I don't however, edit a guideline without careful consideration and review, except possibly as a BRD edit making discussion more efficient. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one criteria that gives an appearance of allowing unsourced notability claims, that of an organization being national or international in scope. The scope of an organization should not dictate notability. There are unnotable organizations which are "national" in scope.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and that clarifying that apparently comment misunderstanding is one of the changes that Abd reverted yesterday.

The (old, and current) text says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both [emphasis added] of the following standards:

Merely being (or claiming to be) national in scope is insufficient: the alternate criteria requires sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that being national or international in scope alone establishes notability. A very limited claim is being made, suggested as establishing a very limited kind of notability: a national organization, also a recognized member of a notable and international organization, which already has its own article, allowing the use of stubs as one solution to the problem of how to present verifiable information about the individual national member associations, where it is determined -- by editorial consensus at the international association article -- that stubs are, under the circumstances, a better solution than simply having a list in the international article or a "list of" article. The most likely cause of this would be where verifiable information exists in detail that would be impractical to present adequately and efficiently in the parent article(s), because of limitations on article size should it be done evenly with all member societies.

This is status quo, apparently, except that because of strict interpretations of GNG and ORG, these stubs may get challenged at AfD, causing, then, debate over individual notability, which is the basic issue at AfD, or should be.

Note that the fundamental argument that fully independent notability is required, and the insistence on independent sources, is based on principles that do not apply in the case examined here. The general principle is that self-published material cannot establish the notability of an organization, and that if no other information exists, there is no independent source available to determine what is allowed in the article. However, once organizational notability is established, through independent sources, the organization's own material about itself may then be used, with caution, and this is routinely accepted. In the case here, the notability proposed is of the international association, clearly, and what is being suggested is that each of the stubs is an expression of that notability, allowing one possible means of organizing legitimately sourced text, with the default source, justifying what is in a stub, being the international organization's own publications or those of the member society, just as all these could be used in the article on the international organization or a List article.

And then we would look at whether or not there is any harm in allowing the stubs. None has been asserted, the claim being made is quite simple, so far: it is prohibited. That's circular. Both the nominator of these AfDs and WhatamIdoing are to be congratulated for helping raise this issue, precisely because they have voiced a common opinion that I believe should be more closely examined. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the flat structure of Wikipedia. Instead of Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society‎, we might have International Amateur Radio Union/Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society, where subpages would be used to create a common structure under the notability umbrella of International Amateur Radio Union. Disapproved according to WP:SUBPAGE, which claimed that this feature was disabled on en.wiki. Not true. At least the page was created until speedied, and I could view it. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored some of what WhatamIdoing had changed, this is what I have now:

(Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations)

The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet the sourcing requirements of

1. these alternate criteria, and/or
2. the primary criteria, and/or
3. the general notability guideline.

Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated.

At this point, I'd say, the general disclaimer at the end should probably stand. At any time, someone might come up with an alternate means of establishing notability, and the assumption that Wikipedia runs by strict rules is so common that it's worth regular reminder that it is not. I left the categorical statement about "no organization is considered notable except...." because that is an efficient and accurate summary of what notability means in general. A possible exception, under discussion here, doesn't change that in substance. The International Amateur Radio Union is "outside" of Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society‎ and is "independent" from it, and has certainly noticed the member society. Then we will turn to the "alternate criteria." --Abd (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. About the single sentence ("Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated") difference:

My question is how editors can 'otherwise demonstrate' notability if they haven't been able to demonstrate it in the three systems presented there. We give them three methods for demonstrating notability, and this sentence seems to say, "Oh, and there's a fourth method (or possibly many more), but we're not telling you what it is, because it's a secret." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask a question, get an answer: whether we can imagine how they could do it or not is moot. The Wiki Universe is vast and possibilities are beyond our capacity of full expectation, and defacto policy is that we do not tie up the editorial community with rigid rules unless there is clear necessity. I.e., policy. There is no secret. There is admission of ignorance and incapacity, that we cannot possibly think of everything, and if we did attempt this, the guideline would become a serious Tome. Instruction creep. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So you can't actually think of a fourth way to "otherwise demonstrate" notability outside of the named guidelines, but you believe that a fourth way might possibly exist, and therefore you want to include a sentence that asserts its existence?

It seems to me that we would be providing misleading information and false hope to editors by asserting that such a fourth way exists.

I am willing to avoid text that closes off the possibility of a fourth way coming into existence, but I am not willing to imply the existence of a fourth way unless we know what that fourth way is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

National-scope member organizations

I proposed and self reverted a new paragraph covering the issue that has been under discussion, that could clarify and prevent unnecessary dispute at AfD. This follows the paragraph on splitting, which is more limited, I suggest an option which may be followed when editors determine that simple, case-by-case splitting would be cumbersome, and reflects existing practice, apparently. This is the proposed text:

• Where there is a notable international organization with many member societies of national scope, and where the parent article would become excessively large or cumbersome if the local chapter guidance above is followed piecemeal, the use of stubs on the member societies may be considered. These may be considered sufficiently notable for stubs as being themselves national in scope, and with recognition by the international society showing independent notice and verification.

This is very specific and creates no barn door to fly strange craft through. The decision would remain top-down, at the parent article, as currently suggested, and maverick attempts to create individual articles would then be quickly popped back to the parent article. --Abd (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't care about the top-down/bottom-up distinction: No independent sources means no separate articles. Notability is not inherited for organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: the proposed text allows use of the official international organization's publications as an independent source; they are clearly independent from the national organization which would be the subject of the stub, and they show notability, particularly due to the exclusive national character of the national society (this cannot multiply out of control). It does satisfy the literal meaning of the existing guideline, and is actual practice. There are two bases for the notability of the stub: national organization (not local) and verifiable information from independent reliable source, the international organization's official material being reliable for this purpose. If there is other reliable source on the national organization, this guideline change would not be needed for that particular article, but it will avoid useless debate in more marginal cases if accepted. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any discussion at AfD would accept, say, the website of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies as an independent reliable source for information about its member, Afghan Red Crescent Society. Similarly, I seriously doubt that University of California San Francisco would be considered an independent source for the UCSF Medical Center, or that any parent corporation is going to be accepted as an independent source for an article about its wholly owned subsidiaries.

These entities may well be notable, but the parent/owner/partner/affiliate's notice of itself is not evidence of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Generally, the national organizations are independent from the international organization. They certainly have connections, and they are certainly "friendly." But a notable international organization's recognition of a national organization, I'm suggesting, does create notability for it. Before that recognition, except for completely independent reliable source, there was no basis for notability. With it, there is. I can't just set up a radio club and apply for recognition by the International Amateur Radio Union. They would refer me to the American Radio Relay League which is the national organization for the United States, which would certainly, if I met its standards, recognize my club. But my club be national in scope and would not qualify my club under the present or proposed guideline. The only one of the examples given that might qualify would be the Afghan Red Crescent Society. Yes, even if there were no other sources, the ARCS would qualify for a stub based on the guideline, assuming that it is legally independent, is national in scope, and is recognized by the notable international organization, being described in the international organization's publications.

Calling the international organization the "parent" is perhaps misleading. Generally, the international organization did not create the national ones, the situation is the other way around. The national organizations created the international union. If examples exist where an international organization created and controls the national organizations, that could be a different case. So perhaps we should say "independent national society"? Generally, the international society has no legal control over the national ones, nor does any individual national society control the international, except, with the example before us, the ARRL manages the IARU.--Abd (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Afghan Red Crescent Society has no references other than the ICRC and its own web site. Thus this proposed guideline would indeed cover the ARCS article. That is closer to existing practice than the interpretation of this guideline that I'm questioning. The ARCS apparently, as is usual, predates the international organization that it is a member of. It was founded, operated locally, then was "noticed." It is highly likely that eventually other sources will be found. Thus AfD would be, in the end, a waste of time. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

The fact that Afghan Red Crescent Society does not WP:CITE any independent sources does not demonstrate that no independent sources exist. AfD is not a clean-up board: editors should not nominate even a zero-source article for deletion if they honestly believe that the sources exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WhatamIdoing. Adding this would be carte blanche for non-notable stubs. Pcap ping 08:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you give an example, Pcap? Well-specified exemptions to general rules do not create a carte blanche. Perhaps this exception is not well-enough specified? What about the specific example that raised this question? National member organizations of the International Amateur Radio Union? One per nation, maximum. Most of the articles exist, by the way, it is the status quo. --Abd (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose per WhatamIdoing. Every member of an organization is not necessarily notable, and if the parent article is that bloated, then maybe someone should look at culling out all the unnecessary stuff that was shoved in there (i.e. such detailed coverage on every member/chapter/etc). Notability is not inherited, and just because one group is part of organization X does not make them notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This does not address the proposal, which is not to make "every member" or "group" notable, but only national groups, based on the international organization's exclusive recognition, eligible for a stub with the international recognition and national scope as the basis. This isn't something new, it is a clarification of the guideline, reflecting rough status quo. In the one case alone, IARU national member societies, we will see up to a hundred AfDs that will mostly be contentious. Actual !voting in these AfDs is mostly Keep, when they are noticed. --Abd (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I think we are addressing the proposal; you, on the other hand, aren't seeing the implications for your proposed text, beyond getting a free pass for the current mess at AfD. This rule actually says: If Apple, Inc. recognizes its legally separate national group, Apple Canada, Inc., then Apple Canada, Inc. deserves its own article -- simply for existing, even if nobody except the international organization ever gave the Canadian corporation a second thought.

Apple, Inc. is clearly a "notable international organization" and Apple Canada, Inc is clearly a "member of national scope." That's what your text says, even though it might not be what you meant.

Additionally, you are attempting to declare inherent notability, and we're rejecting that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is preposterous, I'm afraid. The proposed criterion is in the section on non-commercial organizations, the intention is to handle international bodies like the IARU or the ICRC, and even if this were somehow considered to apply to a commercial corporation, those are privately owned and are not national in scope, they merely operate within or across nations. Apple Canada, Inc, is not an independent organization, and isn't even mentioned in Apple, Inc.. Information on Apple Canada clearly indicates Apple, Inc., as the "parent" corporation, and the parent came before and organized the child corporation and probably controls it. The attempt here is to be very narrow, to cover the IARU and other similar international bodies, such as the ICRC or the Federation, that recognize and confer status on national organizations; and the application is such bodies where there are many national organizations, each one national in scope (IARU will only recognize one society per nation; national societies then recognize local chapters or associations, typically with very easy standards; this guideline would establish no notability for local chapters. The IARU does not organize or control member societies, though they do, as part of the application process, promise to observe the rules for members.

I propose considering the specific application to the IARU. If that example is rejected, then there is no use discussing the general case. However, if the IARU application is accepted, but there is something wrong with the statement I wrote, it should be properly specified so as to cover a good case, but not create some loophole. (Note that, while it's controversial, rough consensus seems to be that the national members are, in fact, sufficiently notable for articles, ipso facto, and guidelines should follow actual practice.)

The notability proposed is not "inherent," which is an imprecise term. Rather, it is notability established by the satisfaction of specific criteria. The section current says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

Notice "usually notable." The text proposed uses similar qualifying language: "may be considered." If one is "inherent," so is the other. But neither are actually inherent. All the proposal does is to clarify an issue of sourcing for such national societies. The general argument against allowing articles on societies with little sourcing is that the information in the articles is not then verifiable. But in this case, there is no verifiability issue, nobody has claimed that information from the IARU about national members cannot be cited in articles. The tail is wagging the dog, here. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, it's not really preposterous to use Apple, Inc. as an example: We use the same basic principles for both non-commercial and commercial organizations. Apple Canada is a legally 100% separate organization from Apple Inc.

So far, your fellow editors have rejected the claim that a member is independent of the group it belongs to. We'd probably say the same thing about Barack Obama and the US Democratic Party, too: closely related people and organizations simply are not independent of each other.

The fact that IARU's recognition of its members is not considered 'independent' certainly does not prove that the members are not notable: It only indicates that evidence of the notability needs to come from some other source. I fully believe that this evidence does exist for at least many of the members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I doubt that anyone neutral would support the idea that the proposed guideline has anything to do with the relationship of Apple, the U.S. corporation, parent company to Apple Canada. The proposal is in the section on noncommercial organizations! Secondly, it could be argued that the member is now related. However, the act of admission was a vote by an organization that the member society did not belong to, and, further, this is reported by officials of that international society, who were not elected by vote involving this new member.

The society is not a political party, a closer analogy would be the United Nations and member states. If the U.N. voted to admit some obscure island claiming status as a nation, damned straight that would establish notability for a stub! The significance of this would require more sources, but primary sources can be used to establish stubs of the kind actually being used. As to my fellow editors rejecting the position, I see the opposite. I see a couple of editors here and at WP:RSN partially accepting and partially rejecting, indicating further discussion is needed. I see editors (more than not) voting Keep for the articles in question. Some of these are long-time, experienced editors. Including myself, by the way.

As to finding additional sources, part of my argument is that such recognition (of a national organization by a notable international body) is better considered as if it established intrinsic notability, though a rigid rule on this would be no better than a rigid rule against it. Here is the thinking: for large national societies, it is largely moot (though it is amazingly hard to find strong sources for Radio Club of America, which is not only large, it may be the oldest radio society in the U.S., if not the world, I'm working on it), but for small societies, which with IARU membership means small nations, or undeveloped ones, recognition by a serious international organization like the IARU would be almost certain to be noticed by local press at the time. For most members, though, this is pre-internet, and we often don't know exactly what language would be used, and the newspapers in question may not have any kind of accessible archive yet. However, it is a near certainty that all actions of the IARU admitting new members were reported in QST, as they are now, so it is just a matter of finding that reference.

I've argued that IARU recognition is adequate in itself, but it appears that such recognition is routinely reported in ham radio magazines. After all, in that field, it is big news, and there might be one or two of these a year. I'm asking for members of the ARRL to look in archives of QST, but it will take time, and, my opinion, it's merely frosting on the cake. You want frosting, fine. I'll help find it! But meanwhile, are a bunch of articles that will be restored anyway, ultimately, going to be subject to AfD, possibly repeated nominations? With chaotic outcomes? Does anyone care about efficiency? --Abd (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Intrinsic" or "inherent" notability is not supported by this guideline -- full stop, no exceptions, no special pleadings. If no independent sources exist(!), anywhere in the world, then the organization simply is not notable.

If the UN recognized some tiny government, the government would become notable through the action of the news stories about the UN's recognition, and not by the act of recognition itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Notice. I opened a discussion of the Reliable Source issue at WP:RSN[2] --Abd (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

At what point does Wikipedia itself confer notability ?

I've tried to find an answer to this, so for give me for what might be a FAQ, but I've noticed a few organizations that are mentioned on Wikipedia in contexts that implies they are notable in their own right, ie not just as an attribute of something which is notable. DominicConnor (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Never. Wikipedia is not here to confer notability on anyone. Any unnotable organization articles, they should be nominated for deletion or tagged with CSD A7. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dominic, could you give us an example?

AnmaFinotera is right: the fact that an organization is mentioned on Wikipedia is 100% irrelevant to whether it is notable. However, there are many organizations mentioned on Wikipedia that are notable, even though nobody has (yet) bothered to write an article about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an indirect effect of material appearing in Wikipedia conferring notability: The writer of the next book or magazine or newspaper article about the subject is likely to look it up, among other sources, in Wikipedia, since we have longer articles about most topics than other encyclopedias and compare very favorably (in length at least) with reference books, magazines, or newspapers discussing the topic. The writer may then incorporate references, factoids, or even text from Wikipedia. Many times I have found a source on some obscure topic at Google Books and started to use it in Wikipedia, only to find that Wikipedia was identified as the source for the material in the book. Only if they crib and do not credit us as the source do they look "independent and reliable." Edison (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Independence

How should "independence" be judged? For example the organization Network TwentyOne has received significant coverage by World Vision as it is (according to World Vision) their largest corporate sponsor (still less than 3% of revenues though). The article itself doesn't rely on World Vision for notability per se, but another source is claiming it is not independent because of the financial connection. While I think there's some justification for this opinion, where should a line be drawn with regards "notability" and "independence"? I'd also note that in the lede of WP:CORP the word "independent" is linked to WP:V which doesn't doesn't talk about independence. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just changed the lede to "third party" rather than "independent", to reflect the wording of WP:V. This change of course may influence the question above! --Insider201283 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent/third-party as in not directly related to them. So press releases don't count, nor would I say "coverage" from a corporate sponsor would count towards notability (that doesn't make it an unreliable source, but alone I don't think it can establish notability). Is anyone who is not financially benefiting from the company talking about it? Newspapers, media outlets, books, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re that article, so far I've found a deal of coverage in a couple of books, a 5 page magazine spread on the company and it's founders, plus a couple of newspaper reports. The notability of the particular article doesn't need the World Vision stuff as it's pretty in the clear there (except to one other editor - some comments on Talk:Network_TwentyOne would be appreciated :-)) I was enquiring mostly for the purpose of clarifying it for the sake of improving WP :) Where is the line drawn? Any financial benefit? By that definition no newspapers would qualify as sources for any article about a company that had advertised with them. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say more direct financial benefit - i.e. a parent company, part owner, etc. Newspapers, because they do carry advertising, can't be considered to be financially tied to the companies that buy their advertising since that doesn't influence the stories, and they can always say "no, I won't carry your ad", versus a part owner which can't say "today I don't own you" :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so can a charity be considered "financially tied" to it's sponsors? Unless it was a majority I'd say no. Just to note, in the example that got me thinking it's not "coverage from a corporate sponsor", it's the other way around, a charity covering one of it's sponsors/donors. Clearly there's a relationship, but as per the advertising comment, where is the line drawn? Hmm on the other hand ... given the charity has millions of sponsors, it could be argued that a major charity "covering" some particular sponsors speaks to notability - virtually because of the financial connection. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Charities are a different ball game, since they can be sponsored by many companies. In the end, it comes down to basically using some common sense and, that any notable organization should have coverage outside of anyone related to it. If the only one talking about a charity is a sponsor, or visa versa, it isn't very notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though I've pretty much convinced myself that it does contribute towards notability, unlike say a press release or other self-published work. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just money that matters. Editors need to consider all the facts and circumstances. A 'news article' that is written by a public relations agency is never truly independent, even if the newspaper never receives any money from the subject. There are many forms of non-financial conflicts of interest.

I'm reminded of a common bit of small-town corruption: In a town I once lived in, the police 'randomly' selected the same upscale grocery store and the same wine shop for alcohol sales stings several years in a row -- but never once sent anyone to the bar where the high school students were known to drink. Why? Well, nobody "really" knows -- maybe it was pure chance -- but the owner of said bar had been good friends with the police chief since high school, and the bar hired the staff of the local newspaper as barkeepers.

Reports from a system like that is entirely suspect, without any money changing hands. Of course, we will probably not be able to identify such articles very often, but when we can, they should be excluded as non-independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Salt Spring Coffee Co.

Despite a plethora of industry and local media coverage, I don't see how this company is notable enough to warrant an article; and also there's been a heavy amount of COI input and deletion/censorhip. Please see User_talk:Ctremewen#COI_on_Saltspring_Coffee to the COI contributor, and User_talk:Maclean25#Saltspring_Coffee_is_notable.3F to another experienced editor who removed the notability tag for the second time....Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadcasting stations

Radio

• In a great many AFDs, and television broadcasting stations of varying notability have come up for AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media gives the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as shown by the results of those AFDs. Policy on Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the consensus of the community actually is, from the input of thousands of participants in AFDs. That section of outcomes states:

• Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)
• Internet radio stations are usually kept as notable if they can demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence. AOL Radio and WOXY, for instance, are clearly notable, but your own personal Peercast stream with three listeners is not.
• Satellite radio channels on XM, Sirius or WorldSpace are kept, but if they merely relay an existing conventional broadcast service such as Fox News or Deutsche Welle, then the satellite service should be written about as part the existing service's article rather than as a separate article.
• Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable.

I propose that a discussion be held here to determine if there is a consensus that preceding language, making the change from "are usually kept" to "are usually considered notable," or some variation, such as the essay portion Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Broadcast media, should be included in this guideline. One goal of this proposal is to achieve a consensus and meeting of the minds here rather than refighting the battle from scratch for every AFD of every low power radio station somewhere. Certainly if there is to be a real discussion the proposal would need to be publicized in appropriate forums. Edison (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• All of what you are saying is good. But once a section gets too expansive, then splitting would obviously commence. If a broadcasting station is so insignificant, then I am all for merging and redirecting with history in tact if there is any. Now what length does a broadcasting station have to be in existence to be considered notable? That is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be discussion, where should notice be given so that all who might be interested in participating hear of it? I am certainly not interested in canvassing. I have posted a friendly notice of this on the talk page of every editor who !voted or commented in AFDs for radio stations (didn't see any for TV stations) back to January 22. Edison (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you hoping to change text here, or at OUTCOMES?

Are you aware that OUTCOMES has no force (i.e., is not a policy or guideline) and no method for determining whether the purported facts in it are actually true? (If you haven't read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Citing_this_page_in_AfD, then I recommend it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, this is not an AFD. As for the accuracy of the cited article, it reflects what I have seen in AFDs for broadcast stations. "These "Outcomes" have been cited as precedent in AFDs, and I would be surprised if a "licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming" got deleted, unless perhaps it were a part time micropower student-run station, or something that broadcast church services to the neighborhood once a week. A 1000 watt station which operated from 1940 to 1950 would be very unlikely to get deleted. A low power TV "repeater" station which did not originate any of its own programming, or a low power unlicensed station which broadcast to one building would be very unlikely to get kept in AFD. If there are conflicts between how AFDs always come out, and guidelines, the guidelines should be examined for possible updating. If some class of things seem to be AFD-proof, such that a nomination of one would be considered "disruptive," (such as a major market television station), then perhaps that should be noted in guidelines. I see outcomes as "descriptive" of the consensus or "defacto" as to what things are notable, based on the consensus of editors at AFDs. Guidelines should be descriptive of current practice and not just "proscriptive," representing the opinions of editors on a talk page like this as to what "should" be notable. The outcomes are very useful input to updating a guideline to reflect the present consensus. Per Wikipedia:GUIDELINE,"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." The consensus springs from outcomes and discussion here. We could try and establish a succinct addition to this notability guideline, or continue to have long drawnout battles at every AFD about some marginal station. Edison (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page should match actual practice.

Do you think that there are any stations that meet the criteria on your list above, but don't comply with the WP:CORP#Primary criteria? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For commercial broadcast stations, there are very likely independent secondary sources, such as the local newspaper with significant coverage. It may take some digging through offline newspaper files to find them. For nonlocal sources, there is usually coverage in the trade press when ownership changes, format changes, or there are scandals. There is a very reasonable presumption of there being coverage to satisfy GNG for commercial stations, such that in AFDs I have not seen any deleted, ha few have been merged to an article on the same station with different call letters. In other words, such commercial stations likely satisfy GNG, but time is required for each to find those references. For licensed community stations or school stations or church stations with a few watts of FM power, there have been claims of "blanket" or "inherent" notability coming from the license if they originate some of their own programming. Having independent coverage may depend on whether the operators bothered to call on the local newspaper or TV station and do an interview segment. Many pirate stations were deleted for failing to have independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, but some which thus satisfied GNG were kept. I've started an annotated listing of broadcast station AFDs at User:Edison/Broadcasting station AFD listing. which I will expand, to see how the borderline or marginal notability stations fared. Having a license and originating some programming is a convenient "bright line," but some might insist on multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. As I said, the larger operations likely have that,but it can be a project to dig it up. Some college stations may only have coverage in the college paper, or some community stations might only have directory listings and coverage in the local paper. This seems like a good forum to decide how we deal with those marginal cases. Edison (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What I understood from your reply is that, as a general rule, no change is necessary to get the "right" outcome at AfD (to keep articles about notable stations).

The change, instead, is intended to reduce your workload by preventing the (mis)use of AfD as clean up. Your mechanism for doing this is to declare the inherent notability of all licensed stations, including those stations that are reasonably believed not to have received any "notice" from independent sources (e.g., because the small station didn't choose to be interviewed by the local newspaper).

Is my summary reasonably correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AFDs cite the essay section WP:BROADCAST, or cite "common outcomes" as if they were a guideline, to the effect that "Licensed broadcast stations which produce a portion of the material they air are notable." This has been true regardless of whether references have been provided from reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, probably on the assumption that such stations likely have such coverage. Commercial broadcast stations have been kept in AFD, to the best of my knowledged, (or occasionally merged to a more recent set of call letters for the "same station"). I wish to add that language to this notability guideline, while clarifying whether the same applies down to very low powered (1 watt, 10 watt) "Class D" (US) or "restricted" (UK) or equivalent educational or community stations, which some editors assume. I would tend not to grant assumed notability to temporary or restricted stations (UK) or community or educational lower than 100 watt stations (U.S.) which would need to meet GND via "multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." For a college station, the college paper might constitute "independent" since it is not an organ of the broadcast station. For a station in a town, the town newspaper might be considered "independent" if it is not from the same company that owns the broadcast station. I would not grant notability just because of an assertion of a "long history" or "unique programming" as does WP:BROADCAST. Translators/100%rebroadcasters would generally redirect to the programming source. Edison (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is interesting, but didn't tell me what I need to know.

Right now, with the existing written advice, is AfD making the right choices (in your opinion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My Plan, Same Topic

I think the lauguage of the new "Radio Stations are Notable" policy, be it at WP:N (WP:N#RADIO anyone?) or at WP:RADIOSTATION (or whatever) should list the following....

• All FM, AM, and LP stations with an FCC license classifing it as "Licensed" are notable and allowed, this would include current and defunct radio stations that were FM, AM, or LP.
  • There would be a very small number of FM stations that would be redirected to larger pages. Wholesale 24-7-365 affiliates of religious networks like K-LOVE, Bible Broadcasting Network, or Air 1 would be redirected to the parent network. IF the station broadcasts programming outside the religious network (like local news, sports, music, etc.) then they could be considered for a seperate article, but with sources to show the station is away from the network for a set amount of time.
    • Stations airing programming from Citadel Media, Dial Global, and other music satellite networks would be exempt from this rule and notable for a seperate page.
      • Talk stations airing programming from Premiere Radio Networks and others would also be exempt.
        • Sports stations getting programming from ESPN Radio, Fox Sports Radio, Sporting News Radio or any other national sports radio network would also be exempt from this rule.
• FM, AM, and LP stations that are not yet classified by the FCC as "Licensed" not "not yet notable" and should be moved to the creator's userspace. As soon as the FCC classifies the station as "Licensed", then and only then will the station become notable on Wikipedia, allowing it to have an article, which can then be moved from the creator's userspace.
• FM translators (think K222AA or W222BB kinda stations) that just rebroadcast programming would have a redirected page to the parent station or network and would be not notable.
• CC and MW stations may be brought up for discussion as they would not share the same notability as FM, AM, and LP.
• Unlicensed stations are flat out not notable as previous discussions has dictated, this would include Part 15 stations and pirates, as well as internet broadcasters...unless they have extensive third-party sources (ed. note: We would need to clarify how "extensive" the sources should be.). This would also go with Edison's idea above about AOL Radio and WOXY notable but "your own personal Peercast stream with three listeners is not"...had to user Edison's lauguage on that one, just too good.
• Notability would not be classified by any type of ratings, listenership or popularity scale. An FCC license that says the station is "Licensed" (meaning broadcasting) would be the only thing needed to make the station notable as per above.
• (ed. note: stealing this from Edison's idea above cause it is good.) Satellite radio channels on XM, Sirius or WorldSpace are kept, but if they merely relay an existing conventional broadcast service such as Fox News or Deutsche Welle, then the satellite service should be written about as part the existing service's article rather than as a separate article.

This would be kinda the bare bones guidelines of the notability clause for radio stations. This would encompass all FM, AM, and LP radio stations, giving the community the ability to to decide on Carrier current or CC and Medium wave or MW stations and leaving the door open for VERY popular (with MANY sources) internet broadcasters, Part 15s and pirates, but mostly classifing those as not notable.

• Now note, I did not include Television Stations in mine. This is not cause I don't think they are notable, on the contrary, I do think they are notable. I just focused on radio stations in my plan. Edison's and mine could be combined into one if need be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the 24/7/365 religious stations have histories outside of being a total rebroadcaster, plus almost every statioon has their own article specific links to Radio-Locator, history websites, FCC databases and the like (such as infoboxes). The only stations that should be grouped (with redirects from call letters) are the massive amounts of state/university run public radio outlets and commercial simulcasts of more than 2 or 3 stations; other than that the 2 proposals above I support. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Popularity isn't a good judge for notability. A radio station can be immensely popular in its local coverage area, but that out of that coverage area, not many may care about it. Internet stations are not licensed by the FCC and there are some that are notable. As well, some older stations maybe notable for being licensed, but outside of that may have done nothing to be notable. Some newer stations could be more notable outside of being licensed. Somethings we have to address. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am commenting because some one asked me to. I do not see a distinction between Radio and TV, but am confining my comments to radio. I am in UK and thus not concerned with US issues - and I presume the FCC is a US licensor or regulator. I will only pouint out that WP is not a US-encyclopaedia. In UK, the relevant authorities periodically licence an operator for a short period (eg a month) and only for a very local coverage (due to transmitter power). I would suggest that such stations are NN. Accordingly there will be radio stations that are NN. The question is where to draw the line. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer: Well, we could have seperate rules for the US, Canada, and the UK since their respective government organizations run differently and it wouldn't be fair to put US rules on UK stations or UK rules on Canadian stations. We could institute rules for other countries as needed per their government rules and such.
  • To answer your question, the FCC or Federal Communications Commission is the regulatory body that licenses all US (and US territory) stations. Normally licenses run for 8 to 10 years (not sure which) and then they are renewed. It is a constant process. The Canadians are covered by a similar body called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC. It is essentially the Canadian's version of the US's FCC. Not sure how long the licenses up there are in effect for, but there is a rule that Canadian stations must play 30% Canadian artists and musicians. No clue on how the UK operates their radio stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• If I am understanding the proposal, it is to claim that any licensed radio station is notable? If so, I strongly oppose. If it is notable, it will be notable by normal means: significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and I don't mean some small town station talked about only in the same town's small newspaper. Not every station is notable, and being licensed is relatively meaningless and not at all evidence of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  That is what I seek to determine. Does having any FCC or equivalent license grant inherent notability, or not, considering U.S. "community" or "class D"or "low power" broadcasters or UK "restricted" broadcasters, or equivalents in other countries? On the other hand, a presumption of notability for TV station or a powerful commercial broadcast station would just be the presumption that multiple reliable and independent sources likely exist, even if not readily available online, and would dissuade a host of pointless AFDs. Edison (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think they all should be notable or all not. Because if we have "half-notability", we will have the MAJOR stations like KZLA, WABC (AM)...essentially the big city stations as notable and stations that do have local credit and long histories getting the ax. So what if some NYC station gets national coverage, is it anymore notable than some LP station in Montana that was featured in the New York Times? No. All stations (and this is backed up by precedence here on Wikipedia) have been allowed to have inherent notablity. All this discussion is doing is putting that "nod-in-agreement" notability into policy. When we start deciding what is notable and what isn't in radio, then it will start in other corners of Wikipedia. What books are notable, what germs are notable...do we need some obscure germ, lets mention only the major ones...see, a slippery slope for all of Wikipedia. Focusing on something major would make Wikipedia less and less of an encyclopedia and more of a website of "things that are really really important". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

    • Edison, this guideline does not currently support "inherent notability" for anything. Organizations are notable if someone (else) (voluntarily) noticed the org. In the absence of evidence that some source wrote about the org, then this guideline assumes that it is, in fact, not notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

      • No, it assumes it is notable, but puts it in terms that other users can understand so there is no confusion on what is notable and what isn't. There is no question (in my eyes anyway) that radio stations are notable...but what radio stations are notable needs to be laid out and is above by Edison and by me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

        • We must not be speaking of the same thing: The existing guideline, which you will find at WP:ORG (i.e., not at Wikipedia talk:ORG), does not support inherent notability for anything. Radio stations are not an exception to its "provide sources, or WP:FAILN" model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMCN (FM), started April 6, 2010, where I argued for deletion on the grounds that a licensed 5 watt college station which only broadcasts while school is in session was not automatically notable, ended in Keep, endorsing the view that this notability guideline for organizations should have the additional text added: "All licensed broadcast stations which originate a portion of their own programming are generally notable." I would exclude "temporary" or "restricted" licenses issued in some countries for broadcasting from a festival. This would not be a departure from present practice in other notability guidelines; it would put them in common with all U.S. state legislators (or equivalents in other countries), which are generally notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. These are cases where "provide multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage" has not been held to be a requirement for the articles to have a presumption of notability, providing a guideline which can be cited in AFDs to decrease the general noise level and angst in such discussions, as was seen in the WMCM deletion debate. This would say nothing about internet stations or pirate stations, which would still need to satisfy GNG. Edison (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  That's not how it works, actually. Please read the text at the top of the "Additional criteria" section at WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." BIO has been written such that sources almost always exist for those that meet the alternate criteria, but merely meeting the alternate criteria is not a guarantee that the subject is notable/the expected level of sources exist.

  The basic fact is that unless independent sources exist, we cannot write a neutral and verifiable article. You really cannot produce a fair article if all you have is proof that the product, organization, or business exists, and whatever advertising/self-promotional materials it published it self. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Television

Start adding comments on television here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AVAN Technologies

[AVAN Technologies] [3]is a Thrissur based web development and offshore software consulting company. ... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshavan (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 April 2010

Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. Please read WP:COI. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

CFP Board organization

what makes an org notable? my user page has been marked for deletion as I am putting an information page up for cfpboard.org. there was news coverage this week due to the Financial bill introduced in the Senate for a vote. . how can i show notability? Please help! Sclarke1129 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An organization must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources. A single or handful of reports from a single incident might be a good news item for WikiNews, but it would not be notable for encyclopedic inclusion at Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much - I had also included several references over the last 2-3 years in WSJ, and links to other orgs that are on Wikipedia already. In addition, a very similar org Project Management Institute (of which i am a member) has a page. That's why i though CFP Board was a good candidate for inclusion also. Full disclosure- i am an employee of CFP Board - but the notabilty is something I tried to verify outside of our own org in the entry - I am also a journalist, and do think the entry has value. thanks again Sclarke1129 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:COI - in general, being an employee means you should avoid creating articles for your company. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

respect Sclarke1129 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also like to read WP:BFAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition: an expansion of the meaning of "significant coverage"

I'd propose to add the following paragraphs:

When an organization, company, or its products are concerned, "significant coverage" means coverage that reliably establishes that:

• The organization produces owns or uses brand names with wide recognition by the general public;
• The organization is or was historically important in the development of notable technologies;
• The organization is associated with a famous landmark;
• The organization's activities have become a significant object of multiple academic studies;
• The organization plays an important part in a nation or area's culture, cuisine, or folklore;
• The organization is central to a notable historical event; or
• The organization has historic significance due to its longevity and influence.

Your amendments, opinions, or objections would be welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

I see no reason to expand "significant coverage" to be so specific nor limiting beyond the usual meaning of "significant coverage" (i.e. not just press releases, local media, and minor blips". Conversely such criteria would seem to open the door for many unnotable companies based on any reliable coverage, including their own press releases or local media, that makes such claims (some of which are overly subjective, others not evidence of notability). Is there some particular company or organization you feel is being wrongly excluded or included based on "significant coverage" having the usual meaning? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more a matter of further winnowing the field than of wrongful exclusion, by saying that these are the things that within this particular field make coverage rise to the level of significance. Again, the basic thing I'm aiming at with this is to clarify that significance means that people outside the field or trade need to recognize it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that your proposed criteria are helpful. In fact, I think they would have the opposite of your desired goal.

Proposal	Resulting misunderstanding
The organization produces owns or uses brand names with wide recognition by the general public	All private label/store brands are "notable", because every person who shops at the store will "recognize" the brand of milk, canned vegetables, etc.
The organization is associated with a famous landmark	So renting a tiny office in a famous building earns you a Wikipedia article. Even organizations that aren't just "associated with", but actually own or operate landmarks should not have separate articles unless someone has actually written about the organization itself.
The organization plays an important part in a nation or area's culture, cuisine, or folklore	This is a gift to organizers of local parades, minor art festivals, and such. Want an article on Wikipedia? Host a "cultural" event in a rural area or small town. Also, restaurant owners can say they "play an important part in the area's cuisine."
The organization has historic significance due to its longevity and influence.	See WP:BIGNUMBER. If nobody's written anything about it, should we have an article merely because the legal structure existed for an arbitrary number of years?

I know that this isn't what you intended, but this is how some people will interpret these criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GetEducated.com

Hi there.

There is some debate over whether GetEducated.com is notable or not. One user has repeatedly added a {{notable}} tah, and others have removed it.

Could some other people please look in on Talk:GetEducated.com and give their opinion, with a view to forming a consensus on whether or not it is notable, if the tag should be there or not?

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at this point you should be commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com (me, I say it's a strong delete). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Coverage in local and specialized media

I notice that the guideline currently says:

On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.

I removed it on the basis of it directly contradicting WP:GNG, which makes no such distinction. I got reverted, and here we are. Now, local news sources are usually considered valid RS for every other article, and specialized media are also used without problems in many fields (we don't ask BBC coverage for obscure science subjects -specialized journals are more than enough). It seems to me therefore an oddly and unreasonably restrictive wording. I would ask to consider removing or substantially amending it to bring it in line with WP:GNG and accepted practice in all the rest of the namespace. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that this guideline duplicate every detail of WP:GNG and never go beyond it; in fact, if ORG followed GNG in every particular, then there wouldn't be any point to ORG's existence.

Very few organizations or companies attempt to make a claim for notability on the basis of peer-reviewed journals. Many, however, attempt it on the basis of "neighborhood" newspapers or articles in small trade association publications (e.g., Kansas Insurance Agent & Broker, printed six times a year and sent to the ~550 insurance agencies that are members). Editors routinely reject such claims, and this page accurately tells editors that they can normally expect such claims to be rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between reliability and establishing notability. Nor does it contradict WP:N which requires independent, significant coverage - this article just gives an example of what is not independent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GNG is the standard; other guidelines are meant to be more inclusive than GNG -i.e. to give alternative inclusion criteria which extend the simple GNG requirement. WhatamIdoing, I am not sure of understanding what you mean about small trade association publication. If they aren't RS, there's no problem. But if they are RS, why excluding them? I mean, if it's a problem of source reliablity, fine, but then it is not a problem of sources being "local" or "specialized" -a local newspaper can be independent RS coverage, and a specialized magazine can be independent RS coverage too. Could we clarify which sources are RS or not, therefore? --Cyclopia^talk 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GNG is the standard; other sources are meant to provide more detailed inclusion standards particular to the subject matter. I don't remember which editor said it (or where, sadly), but the smaller and/or more local a newspaper gets, the less likely it is to provide truly independent coverage. Also, just so everyone's caught up, this was appears to have been originally added to the guideline on 10 September 2008 here based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 5#Tiny newspapers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks VernoWhitney. It seems a pretty small discussion which never reached significant consensus (2 for, 1 against). I don't understand why the more local, the less independent. Can you elaborate on that and, anyway, isn't this an independent issue? (i.e. should we judge dependency of coverage indepedently from it being local or not?) --Cyclopia^talk 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion I was thinking of is here from last month where WhatamIdoing, as an example, compares The San Jose Mercury News to The Mulberry Advance. There's also another related discussion from December where DGG makes a point at the very bottom that local papers tend to be indiscriminate. That's basically where I'm coming from. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Press releases are considered reliable sources, as are official websites, but they are also excluded from establishing notability. Because they are not independent. Same as local papers talking about local people. Unless, of course, you'd like to say that I am notable because I have been in the local paper once or twice? And every business in America is notable because at some point they have had at least a blurb in their local paper. Local media are local because they cover events of local interest, not because said topics are of actual worldwide notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between press releases and official websites (which are not independent) and local papers, which I don't see why aren't independent. Local papers talk about local people, but it is independent coverage of local people. If you had the local paper talking about you twice or more in detail, and you are not tied to the local paper, yes, you're well within WP:GNG. We do not want to have "worldwide" notability, we only care that independent media have covered the subject. Almost all the towns covered in Wikipedia have no "worldwide notability", yet they're for sure notable. --Cyclopia^talk 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Far too many 'news sources' rely solely on the press reports. So what they publish frequently has not been filtered. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG trumps WP:CORP. Local sources are not less independent and are used constantly on Wikipedia. WP:CORP's contradiction of WP:GNG is pointless and I think it should be changed. PÆon (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Local sources are fine to establish noteability. The commitment of this project is to capture all the worlds knowledge, with no provision to exclude subjects that arent addressed by national media. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy trumps both. WP:PROMOTION: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." - this guideline reflects policy, and the easily establishable consensus as seen in WP:AfDs and other venues where local companies that have only coverage in the local paper are frequently deleted as unnotable. By your arguments, I could go write 2-3 press release for my freelance web firm, send them to my local paper which will likely publish a "report" from them, and then poof, I'm notable. That is not how Wikipedia works. This is not a free for all, not an indiscriminate collection of random listings, and nothing in the "commitment" of this project includes listing every company known to man. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when are all local newspaper articles press releases? Press releases written by a business about themselves are not indicative of notability. However, articles written about businesses by the newspaper are. In addition, you took that line out of context. That refers to businesses who's only sources are their own press releases i.e., articles without independent sources. It makes no mention of the reliability of local sources. Your assumption that all local articles about businesses are press releases and your interpretation of WP:PROMOTION are completely incorrect. PÆon (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Local sources are fine for content, the issue is just with their application to notability. And if you take the "all knowledge" part literally, then we should record what I had for lunch last Tuesday, there has to be a line somewhere. An encyclopedia is necessarily a summary of useful knowledge. Also, if GNG trumps CORP then it also trumps PROF, ATH, etc. and there's no reason to have any of the more particular guidelines. Or am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the fact that guidelines like PROF,ATH etc. are extensions of GNG. It works "It is notable if it passes WP:GNG or WP:SPECIFICGUIDELINE, or both.". That is, if an academic is notable per WP:PROF even if fails WP:GNG, it is notable. If an academic fails WP:PROF but is notable for WP:GNG, then it is notable the same. That's the way it works. About the "all knowledge" part, I'd say all knowledge which is verfiabile and noted by secondary sources, yes. Which doesn't include your lunch (unless several sources talked about it). --Cyclopia^talk 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Beat you by two minutes. :P Silverseren^C 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked it was "presumed notable" if GNG and/or PROF, not "is notable". And in this case I was really only badgering PÆon, since they seem to revel in their absolute certainty. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, no, you guys don't get it at all. All of the specific additional criteria about people and corporations ha nothing to do with WP:GNG. All of them specifically state that GNG still applies, as "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." All of the additional criteria that you are talking about, WP:ATH, WP:CORP, ect, is considered an alternative way to establish notability. Thus, if an article fails to meet the GNG, but does meet the additional specific criteria, then the subject is likely notable, as it says "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability." Do you get it now? Silverseren^C 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The clause in question should be removed. In particular the phrase, "media of limited interest and circulation" does not represent the general consensus because this would mean academic journals and other specialised works which, by their nature, are of limited interest. A 3-person discussion is not a satisfactory quorum to make a sweeping generalisation of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Warden. Sorry, I was focusing on a different point in my last comment. But, yes, you said what I think exactly. Silverseren^C 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let's open up a proper RfC with the community as a whole invited to discuss whether or not companies and organizations that only have coverage in local media or "media of limited interest and circulation" should be considered notable. If the consensus of before shouldn't be satisfactory, I don't see how just this discussion between the few people normally watching this page is either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's sore loser talk. According to the rules, the consensus here is enough. In response to the opinion that an article can meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, the deletionists will say that WP:GNG only presumes notability. If the many articles they attack met both WP:GNG and WP:CORP, it would be much harder for them to remove articles that meet only WP:GNG (and deserve an article) with their ridiculous excuse. PÆon (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right that consensus here is enough, but I'm inclined to believe that every major policy or guideline change needs some wider exposure (RfC or otherwise) per WP:CONLIMITED (I may br in the minority there, though). Regardless, if you think what we have here is anything close to a consensus either way, there's a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, if you want to change a standing guideline such as notability, it does require more discussion than this (and please don't start throwing around insulting labels such as deletionist or inclusionist - thus far this has been a civil discussion, so keep it that way). Further, if this consensus is accepted, it would seem that WP:BIO also needs to be changed, which also has the same exclusion - a person cannot be notable if their only coverage is in the local media. Why should businesses, organization, etc have less stringent guidelines than people?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden and others: Are you fully aware that this applies only to businesses, not to science or scholarly ideas? Just how many academic journals have you personally seen named in AfDs as proof that any organization (commercial or non-commercial) is notable? (I've seen exactly zero.)

Several of you seem to think that you're over at WT:N, not here at WT:ORG. This standard does not apply to anything except businesses and NGOs.

Now if you can all please remember that we're specifically and exclusively discussing the normal standards applied to "Joe's Hamburger Shack" and the "Smallville Business Club" (not people, ideas, music, science, etc.), then perhaps someone can tell me why s/he thinks that an article in a tiny newspaper about the local hamburger joint—which was probably run because the editor has decided to write stories about every restaurant in town, once a month, in alphabetical order—is really a good indication that this "tiny business" deserves a separate article on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOT directly and explicitly saying that articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable, and the inclusion of every gas station or mom-and-pop restaurant that can be verified to exist in a small town being pretty much the canonical example of what editors mean when they deplore indiscriminate information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:GNG, an article must need more than one tiny, non-reliable source. Multiple independent sources are necessary. A tiny business with no importance will not get significant coverage, nor will it get independent sources. In order to get the significant coverage we're talking about, the business would have to be important. My local pharmacy, for example, is not important. I've never seen anything other than the announcement of it's opening in my local newspaper. Mzoli's, however, is important. The goal is to protect the important articles. It will not protect an article with one press release as a source, so there's nothing to worry about. I can understand your fear, that Wikipedia will get filled with articles about tiny shops, but if WP:GNG and WP:CORP are followed, that will not happen. PÆon (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of tiny business will get significant coverage in local newspapers. Perhaps you live in a larger town. Here, pretty much every business in town has been in the paper at least 2-3 times, which by the standards set here means every last one is notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an example for you. Right now, there is an AfD for a business's article. It has three local sources (newspaper with a circulation of 10,000), one national source, and one international source. It has been overwhelmed by deletionists citing the WP:CORP part you're fighting to keep. Do you support their actions? Removing this piece will protect many articles from deletionists. If deletionists didn't use WP:CORP to delete articles like Mzoli's, this wouldn't be a problem, but until this is changed, they will use this section to attack notable businesses. I have a fair compromise. What if we reworded that part to say that in order to establish notability, in addition to the local sources, a business needs one regional or larger source? This would protect the good articles, but disallow the articles that both you and I agree are pointless on Wikipedia. PÆon (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arb break

• How about this?

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary to establish notability.

This will protect notable businesses without allowing the tiny businesses you're referring to on the encyclopedia. PÆon (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PÆon, have you paid careful attention to what this guideline currently says? Specifically, have you noticed that it currently requires only a single non-local source? See "Where coverage is only local in scope..." and "attention solely from local media" (emphasis added). This guideline does not require multiple non-local sources (and AFAIK, never has). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear enough. The AfD I referred to has a national and international source, but to the deletionists, it's not enough. The deletionists have interpreted it that one, even two, sources are not enough. This slight amendment will make it clear that only one is necessary and protect a deletionist interpretation that you need a large number of regional, national, or international sources. Thousands of notable articles will be saved if this sentence is added. Can I go ahead and add that sentence in? PÆon (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is being driven by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). I think you're getting thoughtful and detailed responses.

In the end, editors at AfD are not actually required to favor keeping articles simply because the sources meet the minimum standard described here. This page is an effort to document the community's general view — and the fact that this page is quoted approvingly so often suggests that we're doing fairly well on that score, although I believe every notability page to be, at best, an imperfect description of the community's real views — but editors must use their best judgment in applying it to specific articles. The community retains the right to delete (or merge) even well-sourced articles at its discretion; nothing we put on this page can delete an article the community chooses to keep, or keep an article the community chooses to delete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate is going to be deleted, no matter what is done today. I am not trying to save what is already doomed and have given up on the Muir Skate article. I am only doing this because I don't want it to happen again to another business article. I'm only clarifying what is implied, not changing the guideline. Nobody has to follow it, but later on, when another Mzoli's or Muir Skate is being targeted, the keep side will be able to cite a clear guideline, not something that can be interpreted to delete most business articles on Wikipedia. PÆon (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to accomplish with your proposed amendment, since in addition to adding the "at least one regional ... source is necessary" line you're also removing "media of limited interest and circulation". Please remember that what you feel is implied by the guideline may not be what others feel is implied. I, for example, feel that it is implied that local (or limited interest) sources may not be independent for purposes of establishing notability, and thus your change does not read to me as clarification, but an actual change in the guideline. Furthermore, the rest of the guideline states "...significant coverage in secondary sources ... [a] single independent source is almost never sufficient." (emphasis added), which to me reads as 2+ sources, not the "at least one" which you propose adding. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that section when I wrote it out. Unfortunately, you are confused about the definitions of "primary" and "secondary" sources. Read this. Local coverage can be primary or secondary, as can The New York Times or National Geographic. It depends on the article, not the source. The type of source is completely unrelated to the size of the media outlet. If you read WP:GNG, it states that an article needs multiple secondary sources. If an article only has primary sources from Newsweek and Businessweek, it does not belong on Wikipedia. However, if it has secondary sources from local (plus regional or larger) media, it does belong. Because of this, any person with an understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines and more importantly, an understanding of the definition of primary and secondary sources, who reads the amended section of WP:CORP will understand that an article with two primary sources from a local outlet and one independent source from a national outlet, or two primary sources from a national outlet and one secondary source from a local outlet, is not notable. The guidelines imply that an article with two secondary sources is notable if one of them is regional, national, or international. With this edit, the guideline will not be changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing primary and secondary sources, I was emphasizing that it already says sources, not source, as in more than one. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, in addition to at least one local secondary source, at least one regional, national, or international secondary source is necessary to establish notability. PÆon (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for asking for non-local sources. Local media are enough for everything. Specialized media are enough for everything. Let me remind the spirit of WP:GNG. WP:GNG exists because we want to be sure that what we cover has non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that allow us to write a NPOV, objective article. So the next band on MySpace can't be covered, because we don't have such coverage that allow us to write such an article. But when we have such coverage, there is no reason to exclude content, because all what we need for an article (independent sources) is there. The geographic scope or the specialization of such sources is entirely irrelevant. GNG, in this respect, means that the subject fulfills a technical requirement. In addition, specialized guidelines like this one exist because there are subject that, even if having lacking coverage, are too obviously notable to not be covered, and in such cases we can temporarily fall back to primary sources, for example. --Cyclopia^talk 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the spirit of GNG is explained? I thought the spirit of the guideline is that for an encyclopedia, "topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'", and this is our attempt at defining what that means for the community, unrelated to NPOV. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again: WP:CORP is not WP:GNG. CORP does not care what the "spirit of GNG" is, just like WP:EL does not care what the "spirit of WP:RS" is. Editors have multiple options for establishing notability. CORP is one of the options. If an article is accepted under GNG, then you can ignore CORP. Similarly, if an article is accepted under CORP, then you can ignore GNG.

Think of it as multiple currencies: You can buy food at some large airports using either pounds, dollars, or euros. If you pay with pounds, the cashier will not then turn to you and say, "Okay, now you also have to pay me again, this time in euros."

We're doing the same thing here: If an article meets GNG, it does not need to "get paid again" in CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am trying to say, WhatamIdoing. So, there's no need for a more restrictive clause in CORP about sources requirements, because it is redundant and contradictory. --Cyclopia^talk 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not contradictory: They are separate standards. It is no more contradictory than traffic laws that say "If a street is unmarked, the default speed limit is X" and "The speed limit for this particular stretch of pavement is Y."

Additionally, the fact remains that even if CORP were deleted, or had never existed, editors at AfD would still be rejecting attention from purely small-town/local media sources as evidence that Wikipedia needs separate articles dedicated to mom-and-pop stores. CORP is succeeding in providing an accurate description of the community's actual views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way all other guidelines work. If WP:CORP is alternative to GNG instead than complementary (like all other specific guidelines), then it's CORP weirdness. And if so, this situation has to be solved, because nowhere it is written that GNG is not valid for corporation and that CORP takes precedence. --Cyclopia^talk 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So you want to update the GNG? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Cyclopia actually wants to go read WP:N, which says, "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right" (emphasis added). This IMO indicates plainly that CORP is an alternative to GNG, not a restatement of it.

I agree that there is no written rule that says GNG cannot be applied to businesses. Editors at AfD are free to choose either standard, or to substitute their own best judgment and common sense for the written standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems we're saying the same thing, but I fail to communicate effectively. I agree completely that WP:CORP shouldn't restate GNG, but shouldn't contradict it either with more restrictive requirements. I try to clarify why with a couple of fictional examples.

• Discussion 1: about article on an obscure javelin thrower that competed in the Olympics a lot of time ago. Not enough sources can be found for satisfying fully WP:GNG, but there is a RS which states he played indeed in the Olympics. So even if failing WP:GNG, she satisfies WP:ATH, which is an alternative guideline. Doesn't pass one, but passes another. So the article can stay. No contradiction here, because it satisfies the alternative guideline.
• Discussion 2: about article on an obscure XIX century painter. The guy doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE, but has been discussed in sources for several incidents related with his flamboyant personality and scandals coming out of his works. So, it passes WP:GNG even if failing WP:CREATIVE - and again, having passed one guideline, it can stay.
• Discussion 3: about an obscure software company which is discussed at length, but only in very specialized sources. Here the camps can say "It fails WP:CORP" and another "It passes WP:GNG". Would look like the others, isn't it?

It isn't, exactly for the reason WhatamIdoing says:the guideline should not restate GNG! But actually WP:CORP does that, because it has an alternative requirement on sources coverage. Now: If any topic that is covered in local/specialized sources passes GNG, and if GNG is enough, as usually is, the CORP stricter requirement about sources is completely useless. If otherwise the stricter WP:CORP requirement is needed, we are in the situation of a topic where GNG uniquely does not apply. I hope of having been clearer this time. --Cyclopia^talk 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what Cyclopia is saying and I actually agree with it. What s/he means is that, for articles to meet CORP, according to that sentence we are discussing in this section, they must have sources that are wider ranged than local interests. However,if you do that, then you are meeting GNG anyways. If so, then there is no real point for CORP, because you are making the requirements for it higher than GNG, so in order to reach CORP, you have to reach GNG first. If they are to be true alternatives, then that sentence must be taken out. Otherwise, people can or will never use CORP, since GNG meets the same thing without having to also do other things. Silverseren^C 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now add one more, absolutely critical fact: Complying with GNG is not a guarantee that your subject is notable. It's a rebuttable presumption, which means that you can show up with your sources, and editors can and do reject the notability claim, for any reason or no reason.

CORP is an accurate explanation of the major reasons why editors reject notability for articles that are presumed notable (but not proven to be notable) under GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're arguing about the wrong thing here.

"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, in addition to at least one local secondary source, at least one regional, national, or international secondary source is necessary to establish notability."

It means that unless alternate criteria, i.e., WP:GNG, has been met, an article must have at least one non-local independent source; two independent sources in total. I'm not asking for a rule change and I don't think one is necessary. The guideline is perfectly fine and there's no reason to remove the section. However, to avoid incorrect interpretations, what is implied needs to be clarified. This will change literally nothing in the guideline, it will just explain the guideline to the less informed editors on this encyclopedia. PÆon (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Your proposal introduces a new requirement. Currently, editors are not required to produce any local secondary sources. (Policy writing is harder than most people think.)
2. Your proposal is redundant to the text at the top of WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Laughing* I just caught that!

"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, two independent sources, one of which is regional, national, or international, are necessary to establish notability."

The reason for the redundancy is that this is quoted in AfD's all the time. It's taken out of context and used to delete articles. Even though what is above is already implied, I think it should spell it out to the less informed.

For example:

• Delete "WP:CORP has not been met (and I don't know that an article doesn't have to meet WP:CORP)
• Delete Local sources aren't secondary, so one local and one international source aren't enough (and I don't know that all publications, large and small, have both primary and secondary sources, or that it all depends on the article)

If you don't feel that's necessary, how about:

"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. In order to meet WP:CORP, two independent sources, one of which is regional, national, or international, are necessary." PÆon (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to say this, because I approve of higher standards, but you're raising the bar again: CORP does not currently require a minimum of two sources. See "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" (emphasis added). Almost never = sometimes is.

We have, so far, left open the possibility that some (particularly amazing) single independent source might be accepted at AfD -- largely on the grounds that exactly this has happened (although not very often, in recent times), so flatly requiring two sources with no exceptions has seemed dishonest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a case in which one source was enough, but okay. What about this:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. In order to meet WP:CORP, one regional, national, or international source is necessary. PÆon (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PÆon, you're doing better. If you change your proposed sentence to read, "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary", then you'd be correctly restating the guideline.

I think that the "at least" language is necessary, because while one stellar national source is usually accepted, but a single brief regional source is not always deemed sufficient. We need to make this intelligible to total newbies, and we don't want them to be thinking, "But The Chicago Tribune gave us a whole two paragraphs! Doesn't that make it illegal to delete it?!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the guideline, one is necessary. More are optional. Although "at least" means one is enough, those words will allow for an interpretation that one, two, three or more sources are not enough. PÆon (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is, "At whose option?"

IMO the answer is, "At the sole discretion of editors at AFD". It's not an option that the editor creating the article can unilaterally exercise. Editors at AFD are already permitted to require more than one non-local source. Nothing we say here can stop them from doing that, and I think it's perhaps more informative to new editors to be told, plainly, that on occasion a single non-local source may be judged insufficient. (This seems to be most common if it is a very brief source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: The existence of one non-local source does not guarantee that the subject meets CORP. If we say, "one non-local source is necessary", some editors will (not unreasonably) interpret this statement as meaning "no more than one non-local source is necessary", which is untrue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Untrue? Why untrue? Adding the requirement is exactly to say that we need only one. I personally think we need zero, since all what counts is the existence of third party reliable sources. --Cyclopia^talk 11:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If we say that "(only) one non-local source is necessary", some people will hear "CORP absolutely guarantees me that if I can produce one non-local source, no matter how lousy or trivial the mention, then my article will never be deleted." (I assume her that 'significant coverage' can be supplied by purely local sources.)

Given what you know about AfD, are you personally prepared to guarantee that any small business or local charity that hangs an article on a mere two sentences in a regional newspaper is going to sail straight through AfD without deletion over the lack of attention from non-local sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-promotion

This is getting too complex for me to follow, but I hope participants are agreed that handouts by businesses to local media (and not just newspapers) are insufficient for notability. And if the guidelines don't already say that they should. (Not that handouts can't be used to establish other parameters/not-polemical "facts" after notability has been determined). Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general rule (mostly under WP:ORG#Primary criteria. Perhaps I'll try to make it clearer sometime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I decided to have a go at it (the parts not being discussed above). Perhaps you'd like to read WP:ORG#Primary criteria and let me know if you think it is clear, direct, and reasonably complete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the reorganization works, but I preferred the prose to the bullet points. I think the switching back and forth distracts me. That's my opinion at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Media of Limited Interest and Circulation

I've been thinking about the "media of limited interest and circulation." This disallows smaller, but still reliable sources e.g., scientific journals. The only disallowed media of limited interest and circulation, local media, is already listed. I can't see why it should stay. What do you guys think about removing or changing that? PÆon (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for some background, that was added a year ago, but I can't find any discussion about its addition. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is CORP, and that scientific journals only very rarely write about CORPorations. If you want to propose that CORP take notice of "media of limited interest and circulation", please suggest a relevant example — something, for example, that you believe might be a really good indication of notability for a corporation, not for something entirely unrelated (like a disease or a chemical).

Please make sure that your suggestion has both "limited interest" AND "limited circulation". For example, will it surprise you to learn that NEJM's circulation is almost a quarter of a million people? If NEJM were a daily newspaper, it would be in (or near) the top 25 American papers by circulation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What about trade journals? PÆon (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which one? On a broad area, like education or business, or a very narrow area, like how to cool down electronics?

Tech and Learning, which is a trade magazine focused on the use of technology in education, has a larger circulation than most daily newspapers. Its subject area is fairly broad. As a rule, I think editors would happily accept that as a source that demonstrates attention from the world at large.

On the other hand, if ElectronicsCooling magazine is your best claim to notability, I believe that editors would reject it as being attention from a tiny subset of specialists in thermal management, rather than from the world at large. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Electronics Cooling is a reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia is not supposed to be about only things that are known to the world. If something is highly notable in the small thermal management community, it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Still, the main problem is not Electronics Cooling, it's that many interpretations of that phrase are possible. For example, Concrete Wave magazine, with a worldwide circulation of 20,000, has been called a source with limited interest and circulation. To me, there are only two options. 1, remove it, or 2, define limited circulation with a number. 5,000? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? The best option seems to be remove it, as adding a number only complicates things and leaving it up allows for any ridiculous interpretation. PÆon (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course ElectronicsCooling magazine is a reliable source; I never said that it wasn't.

However, a couple of paragraphs in such a highly specialized magazine not a good indication that the world at large has taken notice of a product or company. Instead, it's an indication that a very small subset of a subtype of engineers has taken notice of a product or company.

I don't think that we're best served by putting hard numbers on 'limited circulation'. I think that editors are capable of making the complex judgments that are required. Also, this page is largely written for newbies. IMO it's friendlier to be clear that sources may be rejected at AfD on those grounds. (This rule merely reflects reality; it exists to document the views of editors at AfD, not to impose a new idea on them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)