Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Sovereign country embassies

I would like to find out if there has been previous discussion about embassy's of sovereign nations. Most of them have articles if you look at things like {{US diplomatic missions}} and {{Diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom}} -- and most of them are horribly referenced using independent sources. I mean, how many books or news publications will there be on ones like Embassy of the United States, Ottawa? The reason I ask is because I feel this touches close to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES where its a notable official government institution that might lack sources and a separate guideline should be made. Mkdw^talk 08:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is quite a bad example as it is often used to circumvent WP:GNG. I think any embassy should just pass WP:GNG, no reason to work around that. Main reason behind that is that all embassies should be treated equally. I see no difference in the embassies of Tuvalu, the Netherlands or Canada and all should meet the same standards. The Banner talk 12:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think embassies are notable, although I have no idea if this was ever discussed. We should probably have a list of institutions or such that are notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be really strange if an embassy opened and didn't get significant coverage in the regional newspapers. You might need to search the newspapers directly, focusing on the time of the embassy's opening, to find detailed sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

then it is WP:NOTNEWS if there is a spike in coverage of an embassy's opening.LibStar (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, NOTNEWS means we shouldn't have an article entirely about its opening. It does not mean that we can't use newspaper articles about its opening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the principals of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it's a prime example nonetheless of a topic where the community feels they're important institutions yet may lack widespread independent coverage. I agree with some coverage but often not in-depth. I was curious. Mkdw^talk 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a 'bad' example. It is the result of a long standing precedent set by over 500 AfD results (not all listed because many fail the {{R from school}} template that populates the category for primary/middle schools, and hundreds of high schools that are kept, and not as a ruse to circumvent WP:GNG. User:The Banner is on a self-admitted solitary campaign to overturn these precedents. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we really need to recognize there are organizations which don't meet the GNG (or the "organizations and companies" part) which are nonetheless notable, and adjust this ("organizations...") policy accordingly, either through additional rules, or at least by listing types of organizations which are considered notable because - if we cannot think of a better reason - long standing tradition and consensus. This would include schools, embassies, academic organizations (see recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive10#Notability_of_learned_societies_with_weak_coverage), and likely a number of other types of institutions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that by "don't meet the GNG" you mean "for which zero independent sources with significant coverage of the subject can be found", how exactly would you write the article?

Pretend that we have Terribly Notable Association. The only independent sources are very brief passing mentions ("John Late was also a member of Terribly Notable Association for many years before his death" or "The bomb hoax at the bank resulted in the evacuation of the nearby law offices of Dewey Cheetam and the Terribly Notable Association").

How exactly are you going to write a fair article about Terribly Notable Association? Our definition of fair is saying whatever the independent sources say, and they aren't saying anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make it clear we allow self-published sources for academic, non-profit bodies. Take a look at International Sociological Association. Everybody and their dog who is associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology will tell you it is one of the most important sociology professional organizations out there, but sources-wise, there's not much about it. The same could be said about most other academic professional organizations. I've run into the problem of how to quantify this - I see an article about what may be a "Terribly Important Organizations" or not, but how can I judge this? I am a professional sociologist, so I know about sociology organizations, at least some of them, but what about other fields? And even just saying that all international and top-level national organizations is notable is not going to be enough. Some regional ones are notable, and at the same time some national and international which have just been created few years ago are not that important - yet. How do we draw the line, particularly when there are so few experts among us, and for most of the populace (and editors), rough reading of GNG suggests all of them are not notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to create a new privileged category of presumed notability for entities that may well never have substantial coverage. (Even in Den Haag, how likely is there to be anything written of note about, say, the Sri Lankan embassy?) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

True, it's probably a case-by-case basis. Sigh. Still, I find it a problem that the current guideline does not give any suggestions about the notability of academic organizations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely if an academic organization is notable, then there will be academic oriented sources of some sort that talk about it. Academic websites etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It may be mentioned, but that's usually all. Academics are rarely interesting in discussing their professional organizations; they are not what we are study, and unlike universities, they don't have much PR staff, nor are they of much interest to general public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If neither the academics who create them and benefit from them, nor the general public, have ever taken notice of these orgs, then why should Wikipedia?

And, again, how exactly are you going to write an article that complies with our content policies, given that (1) the content policies require articles to be based on third-party/independent sources and (2) you say that none of these required sources exist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the specific example, less important groups get scholarly articles like "The History of the British Sociological Association" and "The Multifarious and Changing Functions of the Polish Sociological Association", so why wouldn't the ISA? It's 65 years old and was founded by UNESCO. If you can't find a 50th anniversary review or articles from the time of its founding, then I suggest that you haven't really tried to find them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see you find some, then you get to poke at my inadequacies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to go look. Are you willing to explain how you are going to comply with the content policies if none can be found? It isn't actually possible to write a neutral article if 100% of your sources are from the subject itself. "Neutral" doesn't mean solely "impartial tone". You can't give DUE weight to the subject's opinion of itself if the subject is the only source you're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this source?

Backhouse, Roger E.; Fontaine, Philippe (2010). The History of the Social Sciences since 1945. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521889063. p. 104–108?.

It talks about its founding and how it helped promote national orgs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, but it just summarizes already cited Platt 1998, which goes into much more details on that. Thanks for the find, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add this as a test case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Seoul. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that every embassy is inherently notable. If there are sources to satisfy WP:ORG, then by all means add them to the article. The Japanese Embassy in Washington DC can be shown to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG, for instance, as can the US Embassy in Moscow. As for academic organizations lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources, I also do not agree that they are entitled to inherent notability. Edison (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Where the main sources are complaints by customers

The guideline states: "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline". Sources that don't contain allegations of unlawfulness, but only discuss complaints from customers, seem less significant but are not specifically mentioned in the guideline; should they also be disregarded when assessing notability? Peter James (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The complaints themselves should be disregarded... but, chances are, if lots and lots of people are complaining about an organization, then a reliable independent source will have talked about the company and those complaints. That coverage would indicate notability. Check the newspapers and trade magazines. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you mean by "complaints". If you mean "stuff at Complaints.com" or "bad reviews at Amazon.com", then it doesn't count at all. If you mean "long article in a newspaper outlining customers' complaints", then it does count towards notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper reports, no real information about the company. If they had included allegations of unlawfulness they wouldn't be considered for notability. Peter James (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a general rule could be set. What we want to avoid with the "allegations of unlawfulness" is having a bunch of stubs whose entire contents amount to "Somebody said that WhatamIdoing's Gas Station didn't pay her taxes." The fact that customers are complaining about their products might well constitute "real information about the company". That article, at a minimum, is going to tell you what kinds of products the company produces. I think you're going to have to consider all the facts and circumstances for these sources. They might contribute (at least a little) to the company's notability and to our ability to write an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Publicly traded companies

Are companies automatically notable if they're listed on the NASDAQ, NYSE, LSE, i.e. they're listed on a major stock exchange? Sorry if I'm using the wrong terminology; I don't know much about finance, but I'm just wondering if the strict requirements for being listed on one of the aforementioned exchanges imparts inherent notability. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 13:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No... there is no such thing as "automatic" or "inherent" notability. While most listed companies will be notable, there are exceptions... whether a specific listed company should be considered notable depends on the sources. We should be hesitant to delete articles on listed companies... and certainly should not do so just because no sources are currently cited ... give it a good search.

That said, when a company is listed on a major exchange, there is a very strong likelihood that sources will, in fact, exist... if you look hard enough for them. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is explained at WP:LISTED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:WP:Notability (hotels and resorts)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RS_for_hotels.2Fresorts_etc. The only notability guideline of any kind I can find for hotels is at the top of List of hotels, though I'm still looking around WP:WikiProject Hotels and related projects. Seems to me that hotels and resorts fall under a special category within "companies"....ski resorts also of course involve a lot of hotels, and are intrinsically resorts; WP:SKI might have something I guess.Skookum1 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're already at the right page: this is the official notability guideline for all businesses. WP:WikiProject advice pages have {{essay}} status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources Cited By Publishers Who Perform Fact Checking as Legitimate Alternate Criteria

Hi,

I've been studying the WP Notability criteria and I believe there is a bit of a flaw in Notability criteria for certain types of organizations and companies that don't get extensive coverage in other notable publications.

For example...

• We have a notable publishing organization (i.e. The Notable Publisher) that publishes research papers.
• The notable publishing source's research papers are automatically treated as acceptable sources by WP (and this is not the problem).
• The research papers, themselves, cite sources as references for the content within their papers. So, for example, one research paper may cite 50 sources, some which get extensive coverage and some which don't. However, they're all vetted by The Notable Publisher as being solid sources for the research paper (or the paper would never be allowed to be published).
• If the source being cited within the research paper has been fully vetted and accepted by The Notable Publisher, regardless of whether or not it has had extensive public coverage, then why wouldn't it be good enough for WP, especially since WP defers to The Notable Publisher (and does so in writing)? (The whole reason why WP treats them as Notable Publishers is because WP believes they check their facts before allowing publication.)

The problem manifests itself on WP when WP applies the rule of "extensive coverage" for a source, in order for it to be notable. The fact is that if a source is notable enough to be acceptable to The Notable Publisher, then it should be automatically acceptable for WP articles (so long as it's on topic). The fact that WP would not accept certain sources on the premise that they don't have "extensive coverage," while allowing others to make it through, seems to contradict logic and also violates the rules that other notable Encyclopedias have always followed.

Does anyone else see this or is it just me?

My Best,

--FGuerino (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your question, so let's use some examples.

Notability, just to be clear, means "qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia about the subject". So a notable research paper is a research paper that you want to write an article about, e.g., Galton published a scientific journal article titled "The Patterns in Thumb and Finger Marks". and you want to write an article about that journal article, "The Patterns in Thumb and Finger Marks".

So you are saying that if Notable Publisher cites Galton's paper in a reliable source, that this citation ought to prove that Wikipedia should have an article about the cited paper, "The Patterns in Thumb and Finger Marks".

I don't think that's a good idea. See WP:WHYN for a summary of the problems, which boil down to, what could you say about the paper, other than "somebody once cited this paper"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Are radio stations inherently notable?

Another editor is of the opinion that because some radio station AfDs closed as keep, this somehow creates a consensus that "radio and TV stations have established and inherent notability built on consensus", yet could provide no evidence of any such consensus other than a few AfDs closing as "keep". This is at odds with WP:ORGSIG, which says the exact opposite. Since the wording of WP:ORGSIG is very clear that there are no exceptions, and WP:BCAST also suggests that there is no inherent notability, is there something I'm missing here? I asked multiple times yet Neutralhomer could come up with no evidence of such a consensus (not even a consensus among their WikiProject) yet was adamant about this inherent notability, so I wanted to bring it here see if a third-party could sort this out. Are radio stations inherently notable? If I'm wrong about this I'd like to know why, because everything I'm seeing is suggesting that no, they are not. - SudoGhost 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Numerous discussions, numerous AfDs, strong established consensus and our own AFD Common Outcomes page have shown that radio and television stations that are licensed and broadcasting independent programming (not part of a network like K-LOVE) are notable. While WP:NMEDIA is an essay, not a rule or policy, it is recognized as what the community has agreed is notable through consensus. I'm not sure why SudoGhost is unable to accept this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion on the WikiProject Radio Stations talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The AfD outcomes page lists common outcomes, nothing more. You are advised to read this, since it spells out quite clearly why citing that as proof of inherent notability is inaccurate. In regards to WP:NMEDIA, why would it need to point out that "notability can be established" if notability is inherent, and why does it mention nothing about inherent notability nor support what you're claiming? The numerous AfDs only show that each article was discussed on its own merits, not that the general topic is somehow notable automatically. - SudoGhost 09:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The AfD outcomes prove that the community believes the articles are notable. WP:NMEDIA tries to cover all potential questions that might be raised. I helped write a little of that, though people with larger vocabularies than mine and those who could write way better than I can mine wrote the majority. We tried to cover everything. Each station that has been brought for AfD, that was a legal station in the FCC database, was kept.

• Any Part 15 or unlicensed microbroadcasters or hoax stations are deleted immediately, they just aren't notable.
• Only licensed AM, FM, and LP (low-power) stations are notable. Most Carrier current stations are redirected to the college they are associated with (almost all CC stations are college stations).
• If a station broadcasts a radio network 24/7, the article is redirected to the network, WISE-FM is an example of this.
• If a station broadcasts a radio network 24/7, but had a previous history before the network, it does get an article, WTRM would be an example of this.
• If a station has independent programming, then the station gets an article, WNVA-FM would be an example of this.
• A translator is always redirected to the main station unless it produces it's own programming, W255CJ would be an example of this (that station rebroadcasts a co-owned HD Radio subchannel). These are kinda rare and typically the translator is moved to a section on the main channel article.
• If a station is no longer on the air, it remains notable as Notability is not temporary, WGMS (defunct) would be an exmaple of this.

Not all stations get an article, we have rules, but the stations that meet those rules are given an article as they are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Try to look at it from my point of view: if I were to claim that churches (just as an example) were inherently notable and provided a bunch of AfDs that all closed as keep and cited that as proof, that would be very unconvincing evidence since the only thing those AfDs show is that the topic of those individual AfDs were found to be notable. That doesn't mean that every church is notable, especially when WP:ORGSIG was written as the result of a through discussion and specifically says that organizations are not inherently notable, no matter what kind of organization it is. When a guideline based on a community consensus specifically goes out of its way to point out that these "____ is inherently notable" arguments are wrong, can you really not see why someone would disagree when you say that something is inherently notable? Especially when the only evidence you've provided is that a few AfDs have closed as keep? The AfDs prove that individual articles were discussed and found notable on their own merits, nothing more. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes if you don't believe me. As for your participation in regards to that essay, your opinion on an essay does not supersede the larger community consensus, nor can you decide that such a consensus does not apply to your editing interests. - SudoGhost 09:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the "larger community consensus" is that radio stations are notable, I think I will stick with that. Do me a favor, go back and read my previous post again, you might understand things more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're talking in circles and providing nothing to back up what you're saying. Radio stations are not inherently notable. This is backed by consensus. You've made your point, such as it is. I'm asking others for their input. - SudoGhost 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Expect it to be pretty close to the same as mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has pretty much outlined the consensus, particularly with regard to U.S. and Canadian stations. I think you will find few to disagree with that analysis. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why does the actual wording of WP:ORGSIG specifically disagree with that, and why can nobody actually point to that consensus? Neutralhomer has shown that there is a presumption of notability, but that does not mean that any radio station is inherently notable and that any AfD on a radio station can be speedy kept on that basis alone. WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG, every single relevant notability guideline contradicts this claim, and nobody can seem to find an actual link to this supposed consensus, so where is it? If it can't be shown, it doesn't exist, and every consensus that can be found says that's flat out wrong. I'm more inclined to believe what I can can be shown over a few editors from WikiProject Radio Station telling me that radio station articles can't be deleted, and if such a consensus truly exists then there should be no problem getting this guideline changed to reflect this so-called consensus, because right now what this guideline says and what a few editors are claiming are the exact opposite of one another, and it's the guideline that has more weight than vague claims. - SudoGhost 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, those would be the "vague claims" (as you point it) of an admin, which Orange Mike is. I think he knows the rules, policies, and consensus of a slew of topics more than you and I put together. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Until something is linked, it's a vague claim. If there is a consensus, it can be shown. If it cannot be shown, there is no consensus. Unless this consensus can be shown, we can only use the consensus we have which says in no uncertain terms that "no company or organization is considered inherently notable." I have no doubt that there is a consensus that most radio stations are typically notable, that's not being questioned. I also have no doubt that when radio stations meet certain criteria that they have a presumption of notability, that's also not being questioned. What is being questioned is how radio stations are somehow inherently notable, as not only is there zero evidence of any such consensus but the consensus that does exist says the exact opposite (and would supersede any consensus on an essay or wikiproject, if such a consensus existed). - SudoGhost 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it is quite clear that SudoGhost is now wasting the community's time, by refusing to listen to an admin, I request this discussion (and another like it on WT:WPRS) be closed per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TE, WP:REHASH and WP:HEAR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that WP:TE includes "One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements", I wouldn't be so quick to throw that around that, since you're asking me to find your consensus for you. The consensus I can find says the opposite of what you're claiming, so if it is "wasting time" to ask for evidence of consensus you're sure exists yet can't seem to provide any evidence of, perhaps you should stop wasting everyone's time and find it. - SudoGhost 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually you have asked that: If there is a consensus, it can be shown. If it cannot be shown, there is no consensus. You can't spin that one. It is your responsibility to find the consensus you are asking for, not to demand others to find it for you. Can't spin it back on me, find it or drop it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

...what? I claimed that radio stations are not inherently notable and backed that up with consensus, found at WP:ORGSIG which says the opposite of what you're suggesting. If you're saying that Wikipedia consensus is wrong then you must show where this consensus is that you're claiming exists, it is not my job to do that for you. I can show what I'm saying, you apparently cannot, so I can only go by what is available, how is this a difficult concept for you? - SudoGhost 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

...and an admin says you're wrong. Apparently, that is a difficult concept for you. It is, indeed, your job to find that information you want under WP:TE. If you don't wish to follow the rules, exits are clearly marked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Between your problems reading WP:SK and now WP:TE I can see why you're having a hard time with this. You made the claim, not me. I found evidence of what I am saying, you have not. It is most certainly not my job to find evidence of your claim for you, especially when the consensus you're claiming does not appear to exist, given your unwillingness to find it. I have found the information I want, and it is at spelled out very clearly at WP:ORGSIG. You, however, have not found the information you want. - SudoGhost 19:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Orange Mike that Neutralhomer has correctly stated the longstanding consensus. Articles about licensed radio stations are kept. This is recapitulated at WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast Media. Some use the phrase "inherently notable" as shorthand for this consensus, others don't like to use that phrase, but either way the practical effect of the consensus is well understood.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why does this guideline specifically go out of its way to say otherwise? The "longstanding consensus" is that most radio stations are kept. There is no longstanding consensus that radio stations are inherently notable, and the only longstanding consensus I can find regarding that specific thing is that no, they are not. There is a difference between "radio stations have presumed notability" and "radio stations are inherently notable", the difference being that the second one is demonstrably false. If this guideline is out of date, then it needs to be changed because either it or this claimed consensus is wrong. - SudoGhost 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is inherently notable. In every topic area there are always odd men out and "exceptions to the rule". That said, there are many topics that are so incredibly likely to be notable that it is very hard for people to accept that they are not. To break past the assumptions, tou need to demonstrate that the topic really isn't notable. That despite all that likelihood... despite the fact that so many other (similar) things are notable... this specific one isn't. You are going to have to outline how you looked and looked and looked for sources... and despite every assumption and presumption there really isn't one single reliable source that mentions it. In short, the reality is that there are some topics where, in order to convince others to delete... you're going to have to "prove the negative". Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that radio stations don't have a very strong presumption of notability, but I am saying that there is a difference between that and "inherently notable". - SudoGhost 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This same issue is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Notablity Discussion and User talk:SudoGhost#WBSC (AM) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I brought it here from my talk page to get other opinions, it's not being discussed there. - SudoGhost 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Close the other one then. This isn't going anywhere anyway. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar is exactly right: nothing is inherently notable, not even US presidents or atomic elements, much less radio stations. See WP:WHYN for why inherent notability is unworkable.

Now, it happens that 100% of US presidents and atomic elements are demonstrably and obviously notable, but that's not the same thing as being inherently notable. "Inherently notable" means that the mere fact that the thing exists proves that Wikipedia should have an article about it. This is never true; notability requires verifiable evidence in every case, even in the "obvious" ones.

You should be able to demonstrate that ~99% of the radio stations in question are notable by providing independent reliable sources about them. You should not accept handwaving assertions that radio stations are just so important or just so interesting to dedicated editors that obviously all of them, without exception, need an article here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus has demostrated that radio stations that meet WP:NMEDIA are notable. Also, if it weren't for dedicated editors editing articles for everything from birds to buildings to towns to diseases to flowers to bugs to animals and so on, there wouldn't be 3/4 of the articles Wikipedia has today. Dedicated editors have made Wikipedia what it is today. Should we remove some of the articles about bugs or buildings or towns because a few decidated editors wrote them? By your logic, we should. Not the way that works. Community consensus has shown that bugs, buildings and towns are notable when they meet the rules. Just as radio stations are notable because they meet WP:NMEDIA and have strong establishe community consensus. Sorry, but your logic is wrong. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus is what resulted in WP:NRVE, and NMEDIA-related articles are not exempt from it. Furthermore, WP:V, another page that has firm community consensus behind it, explicitly states that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no "unless, you know, the article is about a radio station" exemption here. No matter what NMEDIA says, and no matter what's true for the typical radio station, if you cannot find a single WP:Third-party source about the radio station (or US president, or bug, or building, or town), then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You ignore the consensus that radio stations are notable. We have sources, most at the bottom of each page, and most have sources. The ones that don't, we are working on. There are three editors that edit daily at WP:WPRS, so we do what we can. I'm currently sourcing each part of a radio station's history for the stations in Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. Others source and update stations in different parts of the country. It's a tough gig, especially tough when I and others have to come here and repeat the same thing over and over ad naseum until you all get it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus that radio stations have a strong presumption of notability, I'll completely agree with that, but there is a critical difference between presumed notability and inherent notability. Presumed notability means that most (if not almost all) such articles are probably notable, and you'd pretty much have to prove the negative to get a consensus to delete the article. Inherent notability on the other hand means that no matter what, a radio station article is automatically notable even if it can be proven that no reliable sources cover the subject in a way that would meet any notability guideline. There is no consensus that radio stations are inherently notable, there is a consensus that no organization, no matter what kind it is, is inherently notable. This consensus applies to the articles in the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, even if members of that WikiProject believe it does not. - SudoGhost 06:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I've been through this ad naseum, the consensus is there. Admins back that up (they kinda have to know these things) and other editors back that up. The horse is dead. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the consensus is there, spelled out quite clearly with no room for confusion. A great many admins also back up that consensus (not that this user right means anything in regards to such comments). If you don't like the consensus you are free to try to get a new consensus, but you may not decide that the consensus does not apply to a set of articles. Short of that, however, you will have to accept that no, radio stations are not inherently notable. No such consensus exists in any form, and a vague "consensus" that such articles have presumed notability does not support a claim that they have inherent notability, especially when actual consensus says quite differently. - SudoGhost 07:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You just don't want to except that consensus, apparently sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" works better. There is no vague consensus, there is strong established consensus that radio stations are notable. If you wish to not acknowledge that from me, look above, other editors and admins agree with that. WP:STICK, read it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not me failing to accept the consensus, given that it's been linked multiple times and never once have you addressed it. There is a strong consensus (though apparently not actually established anywhere) that radio stations have a presumption of notability. I accept that, but you're turning it into something it isn't and never was. Presumed notability is not the same as inherent notability, and consensus says that no such article has inherent notability. Are you saying that WP:ORGSIG isn't a consensus? - SudoGhost 08:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:STICK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to drop the stick and accept that there is no inherent notability, or you can address the consensus that contradicts what you're claiming. WP:ORGSIG is a consensus, how do you explain that? The only explanation I can see is that your interpretation of this consensus you're alluding to is slightly off; there is a consensus that most radio station articles are very likely notable, I don't think anyone is contesting that. However, that doesn't turn into inherent notability, and the only consensus that has actually addressed that aspect in particular came to the conclusion that there is no inherent notability for such articles. Unless a new consensus is established and the guideline changed to say "No company or organization is considered inherently notable, except for radio stations" then that consensus stands, and any claim that there is a consensus for inherent notability is demonstrably false. It's rather telling that despite it being mentioned multiple times, not once did you even attempt to address WP:ORGSIG, the actual guideline that directly addresses this. Skirting around actual consensus to make vague claims of inherent notability isn't a consensus. If it isn't a vague claim, please show where inherent notability was directly addressed and a consensus was found. Otherwise yes, it's a vague claim with no subsistence. Unless WP:ORGSIG is addressed I think this discussion can be closed since the established consensus is that such articles have no inherent notability. - SudoGhost 08:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar and Whatamidoing explain it very well. There are certain things we know are very likely to turn up sufficient source material to be notable (or, like the US presidents or atomic elements, are essentially certain to), and so articles on those are generally given some degree of deference. However, nothing is inherently notable. If you could find a radio station, or an insect, or even a President, that had thin or no coverage, it's not an appropriate article topic. Chances are good that for any given radio station, or what have you, such coverage will in fact exist, rendering the discussion moot. But nothing whatsoever is "inherently notable", only more or less likely to be. Sourcing or lack thereof, not "It's a...", is always dispositive, and in an edge case, something in an "almost always notable" category may be the exception. Of course, it can work the other way around too—something in a category for which most things of its type are not notable may be the exception and be notable. Just as there's no "inherent non-notability" based on classification, there's no inherent notability based on classification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only tell you what the community has told me, radio stations are notable as long as they meet WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

While you're right that no class of topic is inherently notable, the thing about radio stations is that if they're properly licensed by the appropriate licensing authority (FCC in the US, CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the UK, etc.), then the licensing documents are publicly accessible and themselves count as reliable sources for the station. So while "inherently notable" is indeed not the best language to use to describe any situation in principle, it is a reasonable enough approximation of the reality; in exactly the same way as it isn't necessary to argue about whether US presidents are "inherently notable" or not, because there will always be sufficient sources for them to get them past our notability rules regardless of whether their notability is considered "inherent" or "non-inherent", the simple fact of having a proper broadcast license means that reliable sources that get the station past WP:GNG (and WP:CORP) are available for that topic — because the licensing documents themselves are a publicly consultable, objective and reliable source.

As has been noted, the notability rules for radio stations do not create a blanket rule that requires the inclusion of all radio stations: transmitters that only serve as rebroadcasters of other services get redirected to their parent station or network, not independent articles; low-power and unlicensed broadcasters (carrier current, Part 15, pirate radio stations, etc.) get redirected to a parent organization, or just plain excluded, unless you can add enough other sourcing about that station to get past the issue of the station lacking FCC, CRTC or OFCOM sources. But if the station does have a broadcast license from the appropriate broadcast regulator, then reliable sourcing about the station is there because the licensing documents themselves count as reliable sources.

Accordingly, the consensus is that properly licensed radio stations which produce at least some of their own programming are notable enough for independent articles — not because any class of topic gets an "inherent notability" exemption, but because if a radio station meets those two conditions then reliable sources are always going to be available for it. And thus there's no real value in arguing over the semantics of "inherent notability" in this instance; because there's exactly no prospect of a radio station which meets the basic conditions for the notability of radio stations ever being insufficiently sourceable to pass our notability rules despite meeting those basic conditions, the actual end result is exactly the same regardless of whether that notability is "inherent" or "non-inherent". Sure, you're free to change the wording if you feel strongly about the principle of the matter — but no radio station's status of inclusion or exclusion on basic notability grounds is actually going to be affected by that wording change at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Having a license for something does not create notability; otherwise every single business (in the United States at least) would have notability several times over just by virtue of existing, and that's not how Wikipedia determines notability. Public information showing that you have a license is no more an independent third-party source than being in a phone directory. Are they reliable sources? Yes. Are they independent, third-party sources? No. Simply having reliable sources for an article is insufficient, they must show notability. WP:V and WP:N do not go hand-in-hand. I'm not saying that radio stations that meet certain criteria aren't likely to have notability, but meeting those criteria does not guarantee it, and that's the difference between inherited and presumed. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 20:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Most classes of business do not require any license at all to operate — and even of the ones that do, most of them have to apply to a private and/or local licensing board. A licensing violation that results in a disbarment hearing might certainly garner media coverage, but the license itself is not a publicly accessible document right up front. Very few other classes of business besides broadcast media outlets actually have to apply to a federal government agency for permission to operate, and even fewer of those are operating in a field where the licensing authority keeps all of the relevant documents and records posted in perpetuity for public interest purposes.

These aren't just simple directory entries that serve only to demonstrate that a station exists — each station actually has an extensive library of publicly posted documents which give substantial, objective and deep detail on the station's exact conditions of license and technical specifications, any and all violations of its licensing conditions, any and all ownership changes, and numerous other important and encyclopedic aspects that sometimes cannot be properly sourced anywhere else.

As WP:NMEDIA notes, one of the challenges in writing about media is that WP:RS pushes you into a situation where you have to contend with other media's willingness, or lack thereof, to give publicity to their own competition — and that's an issue that no other class of topic ever has to face. And, further, even when competing media outlets do choose to cover the competition you can't always guarantee that they're doing so in a properly neutral fashion; they might overreport on news that reflects badly on the competition (e.g. the morning guy quits in a huff), and underreport or just totally ignore stuff that reflects well (e.g. that other station pulled ahead of ours in the ratings) or neutrally (e.g. the other station applied for a transmitter power increase). Some aspects of the station's operations will certainly get covered in other media, while others probably will not — but since media outlets are the one and only class of topic for which many of the potential sources are the topic's own competition rather than strictly neutral observers, you cannot trust that everything we need to write about that media outlet will have been properly covered in more traditional sources.

So there have to be some strictly neutral, objective sources that can be brought to the table as well — and for broadcast media, the FCC/CRTC/OFCOM, or other equivalent regulator, is sometimes the only possible place to turn for information about a radio or television station which is always strictly neutral and objective in nature.

I would, for the record, almost never write an article that relied exclusively on FCC or CRTC documents alone without also finding some other sources as well. If a radio station meets both of the basic conditions that I outlined above, there will always be some other sources available as well — but the licensing documents themselves are valid sources to use, because for some information that a radio station's article should properly contain, the regulatory documents themselves are the only possible sources. There will never be a licensed television or radio station for which the licensing documents are the only possible sources that exist for the station's basic existence and Wikipedia notability in the first place — but there will also never be a licensed radio or television station for which we don't still need to make use of the licensing documents as the main source for some of the needed content. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, every single business in the US is required to have a business license. Every single corporation requires approval at the state level. A wide variety of businesses need federal licenses, including every place that sells beer, most trucking companies that carry food, and almost anyone having anything to do with firearms, fishing, or flying. Perhaps Canada is less bureaucratic, but radio stations are definitely not the only targets here in the US.

The FCC records are valuable. They are also non-independent and primary. You can (and sometimes should) WP:USEPRIMARY sources, but you can't use them to meet the notability-related requirement that independent secondary sources must have taken notice of the subject.

Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that media outlets can't or won't write about other media outlets. They might sometimes be biased, but our sources are not required to be neutral anyway. There are many periodicals that do nothing except write about the media. If you really, truly cannot find independent secondary sources to support an article about a given radio station, then either you need to improve your search skills (hint: try directly searching the local newspaper's own website) or you need to merge that station into a list or group rather than trying to skirt past the basic requirements that somebody other than the people running the station took notice of its existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You're clearly missing my point here if you think any of that actually contradicts or refutes what I said — all you really did there, for the most part, was to make the same points as I was making in different words. I did not, for instance, say that radio stations are "inherently notable"; I said that they're granted a presumption of notability, if licensed, because additional sources will always be available. In exactly the same way as it's flatly impossible for a person to actually win election as President of the United States without garnering enough coverage in reliable sources to render entirely moot any debate about whether the position confers "inherent" notability or not, there will always be additional sources available for any properly licensed radio station. Some might require more digging than others do to ferret them out, but proper sources will always exist. Are they "inherently" notable? No, just as presidents of the US aren't. But that's a purely philosophical debate, because just as there will never actually be an unsourceable president, there will never actually be an unsourceable FCC-licensed radio station either — and sometimes, to boot, "merge that station into a list or group" is exactly what the relevant sources will dictate, for example by virtue of confirming that the station airs an exclusively satellite-delivered programming schedule with no local content. (You did notice, I assume, that I also said right up front that "produces at least part of its own programming in its own studios" was also a necessary condition for a radio station to be granted that presumption of notability? And thus it isn't just the license itself?) Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Businesses in the United States are required to have a business license, that is a legal requirement for every type of business. Many of them require federal licenses; radio stations are far from unique in this requirement, though some only require some kind of state license. They are reliable sources yes, but they are not independent sources by any stretch of the imagination. If a license was an independent source, every single business in the United States would meet WP:GNG, and that is quite obviously not the case. A radio station having a radio station license is no more a reliable source than a liquor store having a liquor store license; they are reliable sources certainly, but they are not independent of the subject and do not show notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 15:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

They might not be unique in having a business license, but they are unique because they have to have an FCC license. BIG difference. A business license is about $20.00 at the county courthouse, an FCC license is a lot more money, a metric crapload (an actual form of weight, by the way) of paperwork, licenses on the tower, licenses on the frequency, licenses on the antenna, licenses on studio-to-transmitter link, licenses on just about everything. At one time, it even required an FCC license to be a DJ, but that has been done away with. Radio stations are far different from the 7-11 down the block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few licenses are unique to their category, that's not unique in itself. A radio station being unique in having an FCC license is the same as a liquor store being unique because they have to have numerous federal and local licenses, including a TTB license. Liquor stores are heavily licensed, and pays a whole lot more than $20 for a license, are you suggesting that every liquor store in America is notable simply on the grounds of having a license, many of which are unique federal licenses that cost "a lot more money"? - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there could be, in some, admittedly rare cases (at least in the US and Canada and the UK and elsewhere) some reasonable cause to believe that not all radio stations are notable. In some countries, so far as I can tell, there may not be the sort of government licensing with which we in the US at least are familiar. Also, honestly, even in those countries, for some smaller, low power radio stations maybe in some location which is not a major constituent of its own local, possibly smaller, media markets, I suppose it could even be the case that they are not notable, if the specific notability can't be established. I'm thinking here, for instance, of maybe a local low-power station which might be primarily for a local deal community, on which people read the newspaper and suchlike for the blind audience. And, yeah, I think I even know of some such which might not be notable. As a general rule of thumb, I think it reasonable to say that radio stations in large markets that have "journalism reviews" and the like are a safe bet to be notable, because those journalism journals will cover them. In some cases, though, like, maybe, a remote Indian reservation in the northern plains, hundreds of miles possibly from the local media hub, maybe in those cases not all will necessarily be notable. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"a safe bet to be notable" is what I'm saying, I'm not disagreeing with that. I absolutely agree that certain types of radio stations have a strong presumption of notability; that they are very, very likely to be notable. What is an issue however is when someone says that radio stations have inherent notability; meaning that even if not a single independent source can be found and is it shown that it doesn't meet a single notability guideline, that the radio station is notable simply by virtue of being a radio station, despite Wikipedia consensus saying that such articles do not have inherent notability. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 20:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine at least a few cases where, for instance, older radio stations in particular, even in the US and Canada, which might have started with high hopes and ended operations really quickly, for whatever reason, may not be notable. So I don't think that there is necessarily any reason to believe that there is necessarily inherent notability, but, at the same time, I think that there is, for radio stations in the Western developed world in the past few decades, very very good reason for presumption of notability. I can't however necessarily say the same thing for radio stations in the less developed parts of the world, particularly those which might have been or are only of a local type. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to play the "anything expensive is notable" game—which I don't advise—then I think its proponents will want to compare the annual fees for the median (i.e., small) radio station to the annual fees for >$30,000 annual fee paid by any clinic with two physicians using radioactive drugs. NB that we're talking about an annual federal license fee of more than thirty thousand dollars, not just a start-up fee to review new construction. Remember, too, that this doesn't include the fees paid to the state and local agencies (and pretty much all of them require separate licenses and additional fees). I really don't think that we want all the medical radiology clinic in the world to be declared notable merely because they're expensive to operate, but that is the logical and unavoidable result of the "anything expensive is notable" approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would only add that, back around the early 80's, I remember my family doctor reporting that his malpractice insurance was about $100,000 per year. I don't think it would necessarily make sense to say that every doctor in the United States, who as I remember is also required to have regular licensing, is inherently notable either. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were true that all businesses inherently required a license to even open (there is, for instance, no regulatory body that needs to grant you permission to start your own newspaper; incorporation is not the same thing as licensing), it's not true that all or even most classes of business are granted a completely unique license that conveys specific and unique conditions that might be completely unlike those of the neighbouring business in the same class.

Two radio stations in the same city, for example, will have completely different licenses which restrict them to different program formats, different transmitter locations, different ERPs, and on and so forth — which means that every license is a completely unique set of documents to which the public has direct consultation rights.

Two family doctors in the same city, on the other hand, will have medical licenses that are exactly identical except for the names on them — they do not confer unique requirements which would result in one doctor being charged with medical malpractice for doing something that the other doctor could do with impunity because his license permits him to do things the first doctor's license doesn't; they're a standard form which is the same from one doctor to the next, with the only variance being the doctors' names. And because they don't vary from one doctor to another, there isn't a government agency which posts every individual doctor's own individual medical license as public documents of record. You don't need to directly consult a doctor's individual medical license to know whether he's violated it or not; basic law covers that for you. Which means that doctors are not comparable to radio stations in this regard — because their licenses don't serve the same purpose, aren't individually tailored to the individual doctor and don't need to be directly posted on the public record as directly consultable documentation.

So, long story short, you're missing my point: FCC broadcast licenses are different from most other classes of business license that exist. Not just because they're licenses, but because most other classes of business license are standard form letters which are exactly the same from one business in that class to another, not unique documents which are distinctively tailored to each individual entity — and because they're not unique, most other classes of business license are private documents that sit in a filing cabinet somewhere and are not publicly consultable documents that any government agency has any obligation to directly post in a permanent, public fashion. I can still to this day go to my local reference library and personally read every last individual broadcasting license that the CRTC has ever issued, for example — even if the recipient of that license went out of business in 1946, I can still consult their license in a public library — but I cannot go there and personally read the individual medical license of any doctor, past or present. The difference is not the existence of a license — it's the status, strictly unique to broadcast media alone, of that license being publicly consultable, in academic or reference libraries right across the country and/or directly on the web, permanently and forever. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how FCC licenses make radio stations inherently notable. For example, many high schools in the US run licensed radio stations (see Category:High_school_radio_stations_in_the_United_States list of those on Wikipedia); some run unlicensed (legal low-power) stations. I don't see that either of these categories is inherently notable in the Wikipedia sense, since almost all of them are known only very locally -- in fact, many of them are probably less well-known than their high school's football teams, even locally. I don't see why it matters that FCC licenses are unique, publicly consultable, and archived. So are deeds to house lots. Standard WP notability rules should apply. --Macrakis (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Student media are judged by the same inclusion or exclusion standards as any other media outlet, not relegated to a lower status just by virtue of being student media. If being known nationally, rather than locally, were the standard that we used, 98 per cent of all radio stations in the entire United States would flunk, with only some major market stations actually qualifying — even the New York City and Los Angeles radio markets would only be partially covered, because even most of their stations aren't known much more than "locally" either.

And you're still misunderstanding my point if you think I'm saying that all radio stations automatically get included with no exceptions, or that standard notability rules don't apply; I've specifically said more than once that they don't. I've specifically said that some classes of radio stations fall below our notability bar — and I've specifically said that we do require additional sourcing beyond just the FCC license itself. But the point that you also have to accept is that there is simply no such thing as a radio station which has an FCC license but still fails to be reliably sourceable anywhere else — so it's a moot point whether the license confers "inherent" notability or not, because sufficient sourcing will always exist to get a station past GNG regardless of whether its notability is "inherent" or "non-inherent". Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's this bit that seems to be causing the problem: if licensed, because additional sources will always be available. Great: can I add ^{[dubious–discuss]} here?

I happen to think it extremely likely that additional sources will exist. I suspect that your statement is true for 99% of radio stations, or even more. But is it true for 100.0% of radio stations that have ever been licensed? I just don't know. I just don't know enough about the sourcing that's available for this subject to make such a sweeping statement.

But if this is the case, then why are you bothering with all this stuff about the allegedly unique qualities of the license? (Don't you think that nuclear energy licenses are equally tailored to the unique situation for each location and operation? Don't you think that those licenses restrict the facilities just as much, if not more, than a radio station license?) If independent secondary sources truly "always" exist, then why not just cite those sources, or cite your experience as an editor that such sources always exist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You're still putting words in my mouth if you think I don't actually "cite those sources" when I'm the one doing the work — I always make sure any article I work on is sourced as extensively as I'm able to manage, and if I can't find enough sources to pass my basic comfort level about sourcing I don't start the article in the first place. I'm certainly not known around here as someone who's lax or lenient about referencing at all, but rather if anything as someone who's almost too strict a stickler about it.

If somebody else creates an unreferenced article about a radio station, however, then the process that I follow when I come across it is this: I check the FCC or CRTC databases to see if the station is licensed or not. If it isn't, I tag it for deletion right away; if the process reveals to me that the station in question is just a rebroadcaster of another station or network, then I redirect it to that other station right away. If it is a licensed station and if I have the time to do so myself, then I locate and add some sources right away; if I don't have the time to deal with it myself I tag it as unsourced and bring it to WikiProject Radio Stations so that it's flagged for the community's attention. It doesn't qualify for an immediate deletion, because there's a legitimate reason to expect that the article can be sourced up properly — but if after a reasonable amount of time one or more editors have still been unable to locate other sources, then article is deletable on the grounds of not being verifiable — it could be a station that was granted a license but never actually launched, or it could be a rebroadcaster of a service we were never able to properly locate, but either way we can't find the sources to verify what it is, and therefore it's deletable.

And just for the record, I said that licensing documents count as a source for a radio station's article (it has to be allowable, because at least for the technical data — transmitter location, ERP, HAAT, etc. — it's the only viable source.) I never said or implied that it was good enough to be the only source that any radio station's article ever needed to cite. The license doesn't confer "automatic inherent keep forever" notability; it just confers enough of a notability claim to get the station over the speedy hump and into the "give people a chance to ref it up some more first" pile. But other references do still have to be locatable, and I never said otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

He asked a question, he didn't "put words in your mouth". Please stop accusing anyone that responds to you of doing this. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

He asked a question which specifically asserted that I'd said and done something I didn't say and do. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't. Asking why you'd bother going on a rant about licensing being reliable sources if there were always reliable sources anyways is a valid question, and isn't "putting words in your mouth". You need to stop asserting things about others, because nobody is "putting words in your mouth". - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Are radio stations inherently notable? - Courtesy Break

I agree with those who point out that a radio station will nearly always be notable, unless it is very small or short-lived. While there is no such thing as inherent notability, most radio stations can be presumed notable.

But why is this discussion being cluttered up with screenfuls of detail about the nature of radio licenses? A radio station's license is a primary source document, while notability depends on secondary sources. It doesn't matter whether the license is unique or not, public or private; either way it is irrelevant to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point, you're suggesting that a radio station's unique situation is somehow more unique than the other unique situations that many other types of business have. It is not, which is reflected by this guideline. You are more than welcome to try to change the consensus, but until then it's spelled out very clearly, "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." Suggesting that any radio station is automatically notable simply because it has a legally required license (far from a unique requirement) is contradicted by Wikipedia consensus. Such a thing doesn't create inherent notability, no matter how complicated radio station licenses may be. Being complicated has never been a consideration for notability, that is missing the point. Suggesting that a license contributes towards notability, doubly so. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 22:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that there is simply no such thing as a radio station which has an FCC license but still fails to be reliably sourceable anywhere else. So it's a moot point whether the license confers "inherent" notability or not, because sufficient sourcing will always exist to get a station past WP:GNG regardless of whether its notability is "inherent" or "non-inherent". Whether its notability is "inherent" or not, a licensed radio station will always have secondary sources available about it — some stations might require more legwork than others do to actually find it, but it will always be out there somewhere — so the "inherence" or "non-inherence" of notability WRT licensing status is an irrelevant distinction. A radio station gets a presumption (which is not the same thing as "inherent notability"; it just means "benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise") of notability on the basis of the license, but additional outside sourcing is still necessary — and I never said otherwise in the first place, so I don't understand why people seem to think that saying the same things I'm saying in different words is somehow "contradicting" or "refuting" the point. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's what you did say that was cause for concern; licenses do not contribute towards notability in any way. There is also indeed a distinction between inherent and implied, and that is an important distinction in AfD discussions whether you believe so or not; overusing boldfacing and italicizing for unnecessary emphasis doesn't make your point more salient. Radio stations licenses do not contribute towards notability. That most radio station articles are kept because of other factors (such as actually showing notability) is irrelevant to this; any article that shows notability will be kept. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost)

You keep arguing as if I've ever said that radio stations have "inherent" notability. To reiterate yet again, I didn't say that. No topic on Wikipedia ever has "inherent" notability just for existing — but there are some classes of topic for which reliable sources will always be present and available for any legitimate member of that class regardless of whether the notability of that class is "inherent" or "non-inherent". Even the President of the United States is not an "inherently" notable class of topic, but it's simply impossible for a person to actually be a legitimate, duly and properly chosen occupant of that position without being properly sourceable as such (sure, it's theoretically possible that the entire media apparatus could collapse in the future, such that there aren't any reliable sources left in existence, but if that actually happened Wikipedia itself would be gone too so there'd be nothing for us to argue about anyway.) But that doesn't mean we keep a hoax article about some random guy just because his article claims that he was a President of the United States — anybody who really did hold the office will always be sourceable, but you still have to be able to cite real sources which confirm that he really held the office.

Radio stations are the same; reliable sources will always be available for any radio station that is actually (a) duly licensed, and (b) producing at least some of its own unique programming. There are some classes of radio station which do not constitute a notable topic — stations which rebroadcast a parent service and originate no programming of their own get redirected to the parent organization, not independent articles; unlicensed and extremely low-power stations do not get an automatic presumption of notability; stations which get a license but then never actually launch don't get articles; sometimes Part 15 or pirate stations claim to have a license, but it's possible to verify that they don't. And there have occasionally been total hoax radio stations posted to Wikipedia as well (I can probably track down the name of one user who was just notorious for it) — but the claim that the station exists isn't enough if reliable sources aren't there to back it up.

There just isn't any such thing as a station that meets both of those conditions I stated above, but is otherwise entirely unsourceable, yet still gets to keep a Wikipedia article anyway. The license gives it a "benefit of the doubt for the time being" status, certainly, but the article can still be deleted if it can't be properly verified anywhere else — we just don't have a real problem with unsourceable articles actually sticking around, because we routinely delete or redirect articles about radio stations whose existence, licensing status and content can't be properly verified, and the only kind of station that ever actually fails that test is the kind that fails one or both of "duly licensed" and "producing at least some of its own unique programming". If it does meet both of them, it will always be properly verifiable in reliable sources.

Nobody is arguing that there's any blanket "all radio stations are inherently notable" rule — I am, just for starters, very often the first person who will take a radio station's article to AFD if it isn't up to snuff and can't be improved — but we don't have a problem with otherwise-unsourceable radio stations sneaking into Wikipedia and getting permanent exemptions from other content policies, and other sourcing, just on the basis of an FCC license alone. If the article isn't up to snuff, WikiProject Radio Stations investigates the situation and tries to clean it up first — but we do take radio station articles to AFD all the time if they still aren't properly sourceable. A station can have an FCC license and still be deletable if we're unable to verify anything about it in other sources — a station can, for example, have a license but not actually be in operation — and nobody, least of all me, ever said otherwise. In other words, no radio stations are getting a free exemption from Wikipedia's standard content policies — you're putting words in my mouth ("all licensed radio stations are inherently notable"), even though I've explicitly said otherwise all along, to argue about a problem that does not actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a little too much to read when it starts with a flawed premise. I am not suggesting what you're saying, I'm only saying that what you have said is flawed. Radio station licenses do not contribute to notability, and notability is not guaranteed, only presumed. Everything else you're saying is irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 00:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Except for one thing: what I've said is not in contradiction with what you said just here. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this point, but I have never said that notability is "guaranteed" or "inherent" — I've explicitly said numerous times that it isn't, so I don't know why you keep claiming that I've said that it is or that such "inherence" has anything to do with my premise at all. Rather, I have always said exactly what you're saying here, which is that there is a presumption of notability that still has to be supported by other sources. You don't get to tell me that my argument is flawed while proferring exactly the same argument I'm making in the first place back at me as a counterargument, because I am frankly not interested in being forced to defend my point against people who are misunderstanding it. Kindly respond to what I am saying — which is the same thing you're saying — instead of to whatever the heck it is you think I'm saying, which I obviously can't argue against given that it isn't what I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears the misunderstanding is going both ways. You asserting that licenses were reliable sources that contributed to WP:GNG is what I'm pointing out as being false. You said "the simple fact of having a proper broadcast license means that reliable sources that get the station past WP:GNG (and WP:CORP) are available for that topic — because the licensing documents themselves are a publicly consultable, objective and reliable source." However, such licenses are not independent sources and do not contribute to notability or WP:GNG. That is what I am saying, and the only thing I'm saying in terms of disagreeing with you. The things you're suggesting that I'm disagreeing with you on, I'm not. Hopefully that clears up the misunderstanding. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 01:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can accept that maybe in one post I didn't phrase my point as well as I should have — however, I've made abundantly clear as the discussion progressed that it was never my intention to imply that a license alone is enough to give a radio station an automatic permanent "inherent" keep even if no other reliable sources about the station exist at all. It might be possible to read that one post as implying that, although it wasn't my intent and nothing else I've said actually follows from that inference — which is why I keep harping on you for using that inference to invalidate every single other thing I've had to say ("everything else you're saying is irrelevant"), even once I've made it much clearer what I was actually trying to say.

A license is enough to accord the station a temporary "benefit of the doubt" while we determine whether we can locate other sources or not — but a radio station can still be, and often is, deleted if no other sources can be found at all. But the key point is that if the station meets both of the base conditions, "licensed" and "originates at least some of its own programming", then other third party sources will always exist about it. Not because the license itself grants it a permanent keep status, but because no station which meets both of those conditions will ever fail to actually be the subject of any other sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't make that abundantly clear at all, though I don't doubt you intended to. If you're not suggesting that licenses are independent sources that show notability, then there's no disagreement; though they might indicate that reliable sources might exist, radio station licences don't contribute towards notability in the slightest. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability guidelines should reflect the consensus of the community. The consensus as reflected by countless AFDs over many years is that licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. I have never encountered such a station that did not have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, but it might not be available readily online, and might require considerable time and money to obtain old broadcasting industry journals or non-online regional newspapers, or "by subscription" newspapers. I advocate adding the bolded text to a relevant notability guideline such as WP:ORG to avoid the time wasted digging up the demanded refs whenever someone nominates one of the thousands of such stations for deletion. There is a presumption of notability for US state legislators (even if they served one brief term like Ambrose Abbott) for professional athletes who stepped out on the field one time for one minute never to be heard from again, for high schools which meet certain standards, and for inhabited places. You can look for examples of large public high schools or unincorporated villages of 200 which have been deleted. I couldn't find any. Add this class of broadcast stations to the official notability guideline and then more time can be spent on improving the encyclopedia than on jumping through hoops finding refs that are always there if sufficient time and money are spent finding them. It is sophistry to say that some want to keep them because they have licenses, but all businesses have licenses. The license issue is to exclude the child with a RadioShack 3 transistor 100 milliwatt Part 15 transmitter who broadcasts throughout his parents' home but include the licensed 2000 watt AM station in a rural town which covers 3 counties with its signal. Edison (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Community consensus supersedes any claim of consensus at AfD, that is Wikipedia policy. Having a license may give a presumption of notability, but like any article, radio stations must be able to demonstrate that notability if challenged at AfD. That it inconveniences someone to have to back up their claim is not a consideration for changing how that works. Nobody is arguing that radio stations do not have a presumption of notability, but the consensus at AfD seems to be that notability is usually established, but must still be done. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 01:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is basically the same problem with WP:OUTCOMES regarding secondary schools. There's no notability guideline beyond GNG that applies to schools, but secondary schools are regularly kept at AFD because "it's listed at OUTCOMES" (despite the fact that that reason is specifically suppose to be rejected per WP:ATA and OUTCOMES). That becomes a circular argument that is near impossible to break people out of, and I have noted that attempts to make a school notability guideline typically fail fast. I can believe that most licensed broadcast stations are notable by the GNG, but I can't believe all are (the ones that several extremely limited population centers for example). But that puts us in the same barrel as secondary schools. Realistically, I can see an AFD for a broadcast station being closed as keep exactly once, but at that point it is up to the editors to start digging for sources because when the next AFD comes (given enough reasonable time - like 6+ months) the argument "but its kept at OUTCOMES" becomes bogus and should be ignored. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, for the record, WP:OUTCOMES does not, and was never meant to, grant any class of topic an exemption from content policies such as verifiability in reliable sources — what it was meant to do was to preclude subjective debates about how much notability a topic has to attain to be considered more or less notable than another topic in the same class. Even if an article does fall in an "OUTCOMES says keep" class of topic, it can still be deleted if reliable sources can't be found to support its inclusion — and OUTCOMES itself explicitly says that.

The problem is that for any class of topic, it is always possible to draw the notability cutoffs at a lot of different places which would result in very different sets of what's includable and what isn't. As unlikely as it would be, it would certainly be possible to draw a notability guideline for writers so strict that even Jean-Paul Sartre or William Shakespeare would fail it — just as it would be possible to draw one so loose that I could have a Wikipedia article just for getting a letter to the editor published in my local newspaper. You could draw one for radio stations so tight that only stations which have achieved a certain minimum audience size in the Arbitron ratings in a metropolitan media market can be considered notable enough, or one so flexible that I could have an article about the FM transmitter that I plug into my iPod. You could draw one for schools so tight that no school would ever qualify at all, or one so loose that no school could ever not qualify. The one for politicians could be so tight that even half the sitting members of the United States Congress would not be notable enough, or so loose that everybody who ever registered as a candidate in any election at all would be entitled to an article. And all too often, we would end up in circular, unresolvable debates where you and I might believe exactly opposite things about how tight or loose the guideline should be, and what articles should or should not thus be nominated for deletion in the first place.

But the point of OUTCOMES is to try to set some objective, neutral standards for what can or cannot be considered a valid potential article topic, rather than letting people get trapped in those circular debates. It is not meant to be interpreted as an exemption from the content policies, such that we must keep an article about a high school even if not a single reference can be found to verify its existence at all — it's just meant to be understood as "yes, you can write an article about Topic X as long as that article is compliant with our content policies" and/or "Topic Y is not likely to be kept unless you can write something close to the greatest, best-referenced, strongest-notability-claim article that Wikipedia has ever seen". If people don't understand that, and argue that all high schools are automatically notable no matter how unreferenceable they are, then that says a lot more about them than it does about OUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good and how I interpret OUTCOMES to be met, but whenever a unsourced (outside of evidence of a school's existence) school article hits AFD, editors jump in with "Keep because OUTCOMES" making it near impossible to delete such articles to the point where it doesn't make sense to even try the AFD even if you are convinced the school is not notable after your own extensive search of sources. This is the caution here with stations. I can accept that most broadcast stations with federal operating licenses to broadcast will likely be notable, but it's not an assurance that is strong enough to write a notability guideline around. But going the OUTCOME round leads to a potentially danger logic circle. If we can "break" the current abuse of OUTCOMES so that everyone understands it is not a defense to avoid locating good sourcing for a topic, then I would think it reasonable to make broadcast stations an OUTCOME as well. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, on notability guidelines beyond the GNG, these are meant as alternatives, guidelines that say that if X meets certain factual criteria, then there likely sufficient sources that can be found due to the circumstances of that criteria that sourcing to meet the GNG will likely exist or come to exist, and thus we presume X is notable enough for a stand-alone article. So what cutoffs are used in notability guidelines like this aren't harmful unless they are too broad. It's clear, for example, the statement "any radio station is presumed notable" isn't cutting it from discussion above, but a more narrower statement may do it, just an example: "any federally-registered radio station serving a market of more than 100,000 listeners is presumably notable" seems to be in the direction this is heading. But this doesn't mean that a radio station that only serves 25,000 can never be notable, it just needs to show it by meeting the GNG directly. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Company notability

I am concerned that we do not seem to have any serious criteria as to whehter a company is notable, other than whether there is coverage in the media. This means that some very substantial companies that happen not to be "in your face" are coming to AFD. I would suggest the following additional criteria be added to WP:CORP that a company is probably notable:

• Company is quoted on a the main market of a major Stock Excahnge, such as NYSE, LSE, NASDAQ, Paris Bourse, Frankfurt Bourse. Quotation in "pink sheets", or other secondary markets (used mainly by smaller companies) is not included.
• Company has market capitalisation (for quoted companies) of $20M, net assets of $100M, or profits of $20M, or annual turnover of $100M. On the other hand, the threshold might need to be higher for private incestment companies.

I have not decided view as to what the level should be, and hope for comments on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the company is not covered by reliable sources that are verifiable, then it fails to meet our broader standards of notability. You may argue that an NYSE listing ought to convey notability; but a glance at Barron's will show you that there are some pretty darned obscure firms with NYSE listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting some thresholds in the hope of getting a discussion going: if these are too low, I would hope we can come to a consenus of what they should be the threshold. On the issue of WP:RS, in UK where I am companies (except small ones) have to file their accounts with the Registrar of Companies. There is a similar requirement in US. That may appear to be a self-published source, but the accounts have to be audited. That measn that the accounts are verified by a qualified professional. That is surely verification, even if it is not covered in the press (which is not always reliable). I have been seeing AFDs on UK quoted companies with net assets of £20M or turnover of £100M. Certainly listing in itself cannot be the criterion, but the extent of coverage in the press cannot be the right one: the threshold even for the serious newspapers is probably that they only have space to cover 300-500 of the largest companies. Does WP need to set the barrier that high? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Spread the Word to End the Word

This is an advocacy group with a website, sponsored by the Special Olympics, to end the use of the "R-word" (retard/retarded) as an insult. It's been tagged as needing more notability for three and a half years now, and it seems the article has remained kind of lame the entire time, but that no one has had the heart to kill it.

Today I added a brief paragraph, with references to two major newspapers, about the news that came out in 2010 when Obama's then-chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel was attacked for using "retard" to describe liberal groups who were going to run attack ads on fellow Democrats who were not supporting Obamacare, with Sarah Palin, mother of a Down syndrome child, weighed in, calling for him to resign. You know, the usual big scandal of the week that pretty much no one cares about. Among other things, Emanuel was forced to apologize, forced to visit the advocacy group's website, and forced to take their R-word pledge. Rush Limbaugh of course supported Emanuel's non-PC-ness, and of course Palin refused to show any outrage regarding Limbaugh, as of course some noted, and so on.

Anyway, the general kerfuffle was covered everywhere, while the NYT and WaPo included the details about the advocacy group, named its website, and its pledge. I gave references with links. I only added the bare outline (no mention of Palin, Obamacare, Limbaugh, etc.) to the article.

I'm giving more of the story here since my question regards notability. I assume the double mention of this group and its website and its pledge in two top newspapers as part of the bigger story about such a highest-level juicy microscandal automatically gives the organization sufficient notability. I plan to remove the notability tag if that seems reasonable to the readers here.

Bizarrely, the article was tagged one month after the scandal! Choor monster (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it would help to draw a distinction between a) the cause b) the website that was set up to promote the cause, and c) the organization that is behind them. The Organization here is the Special Olympics ... the cause is the campaign to stop the use of the word "retarded", and they have set up a website to support that cause. The question we have to answer is this: which of these inter-related things is notable?

The Org (Special Olympics) is clearly notable. The cause is less so, I think it does rate a prominent mention in the article on the Special Olympics, but I am not sure it rates a stand alone article all to itself. I don't think the Website rates an article... while mentioned in sources, those references are made in passing. We really want something more substantial. So... my call... all three topics should be merged into the article on Special Olympics, give the cause its sub-section, and mention the website in passing in that section. That would put everything into proper context. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Regional sources

I was pleased to find this "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; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." as I was hoping this policy would address the problem of coverage in local and limited interest media. The problem is the word regional. There's a fuzzy boundary between local (non-national) and regional. What makes a media regional, not local? This is different across different countries, and different definitions of region. So, here are some questions to consider:

• do we demand coverage in national media, and remove the word regional? or
• do we keep the word regional, but define it better (how?)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This will vary from country to country according to its size and organisation. In US, it probably means statewide (as opposed to citywide). In UK, there are still a few regional papers, but the regional level now hardly exists. Things such as this need to be left a bit fuzzy. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The lack of any clear definitions is only the tip of the iceberg on the problems with the "local/regional sources are inferior" philosophy, which has not recieved community-wide consensus and remains controversial (e.g. WP:ITSLOCAL) which explains its continued absence from WP:N - which makes this section rather interesting as an article only has to pass WP:N or its relevant subject-specific guideline, not both. CT Cooper · talk 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)