Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Revising WP:AUD

Moved from section above. 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Side note: The question of local sources has been discussed repeatedly here, and their use was limited for exactly the same reasons that EVENT is concerned about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC))

Firstly, I would appreciate the courtesy of a proper reply rather than "side notes" which are anything but.

I would be interested in knowing where these discussions are exactly and would like to see evidence of wider community consensus rather than just the groupthink of a few regulars of this page. The local sources requirement was introduced after a discussion involving just two people. In any case, the provision is unforeseeable as there is no such requirement in WP:GNG and an article only needs to follow the WP:GNG or WP:ORG, not both. School articles are places, not events, so any WP:EVENT comparison needs to be explained. I would argue WP:EVENT was written more to elaborate on WP:NOTNEWS which is a policy requirement on top of notability, and so its special provisions are enforceable. WP:NOTNEWS is rarely an issue for school articles from what I've seen – those that are notable are almost always notable because of multiple issues events/issues over a significant period of time. CT Cooper · talk 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I amongst other things help train local editors in Wikipedia use and standards, and it sounds like this area has gotten into a tangled, legalistic mess. Firstly, I agree with Kudpung that "should" rather than "must" should be the way guidelines operate - indeed, the notice in the header of this very guideline asserts as much, so to have both is contradictory. Secondly, if GNG is a general guideline for all subjects that one can learn how to work with, one shouldn't have to learn all manner of exceptions and contradictory additions to it such as the "no local sources" one here just to function on WP. Such sources are perfectly fine for articles on a vast range of topics, and I don't see why this should be exceptional. Wikipedia editing shouldn't be like Islamic scholarship, *especially* with the declining editor base we should be making it as easy to edit as possible, not serving to satisfy the whims of a few obsessed with the details of notability guidelines. And thirdly, the wording of the sources part of the guideline is very US-centric ... I'm in Australia where the entire meaning of "regional" vs "local" is contested and unclear. Also, CT Cooper makes a good point regarding the fact private schools, universities and colleges are not "non-commercial" and enough of them exist to not make them a particularly rare exception. Orderinchaos 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of Orderinchaos provides a quick insight of how many editors outside the bubble of WP:ORG react to the idea of blanket banning "local sources" when considering notability. There have been an number of attempts to restrict such sources before, the most notable I'm aware of being the original version of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests), which was revised (though later failed anyway) after overwhelming rejection to the idea of excluding local sources. I think Orderinchaos sums it up well when he says that this area has turned into a "tangled, legalistic mess". I see no rational basis for banning local sources for organization notability but not for other areas as well, and I have never gotten a solid or consistent argument for having such a rule at all – justifications for such a rule have included a desire to reduce the number of articles (which contradicts WP:NOTPAPER), to the presumption that all local sources are in cahoots with local interests such as schools (a sweeping and unevidenced assessment), or even that local sources should be ignored to tackle systmatic bias (I was under the impression that systematic bias was countered by adding good new content to undercovered areas, not deleting good content in well covered areas). I could write an essay on the problems with banning local sources, though Orderinchaos touches on a key one being that the word "local" on a worldwide scale and across all media is next to meaningless.

To be frank, I think this guideline needs a serious shake-up – while some of the most inapprorpriate additions have been removed, this vacuum in scrutiny has still resulted in a lot of poor quality guidance which has been allowed to stay around for far too long. The "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" in particular has just gotten silly. Myself and others have rasied concerns before but these have just been ignored. Clearly a more pro-active approach is needed. I have tagged two sections which are currently under discussion here, though my intention is to get them significantly revised or removed. Since we have ended with two parallel but very relevant discussions in this section, I might start a new section shortly to deal specifically with WP:AUD. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the wording of the audience section, it appears that the first sentence was the starting point and the second sentence has been edited to such an extent that it contradicts the first. It currently reads: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. My suggestion would be: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from media of limited interest and circulation may make notability harder to establish, and based on past outcomes, articles relying solely on these are less likely to survive deletion processes. This also gets rid of the "regional/local" distinction which is a very US-centric one and would cause significant confusion in many other parts of the world where they mean the same thing or pertain to something very different to what the author(s) intended. Orderinchaos 21:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While I would prefer that the entire discussion of media scope be done away as the WP:GNG manages well without it, this new wording would be more reflective of actual practice and give much needed flexibility compared to the current wording. CT Cooper · talk 22:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:CT Cooper, I invite you to explore the button at the top of the page that is labeled "search archives". Finding the discussions yourself will prevent you from being able to accuse anyone of misleading you or cherry-picking discussions.

As for the other points above, in no particular order:

• There is no ban on local sources. There is a requirement that one (1) non-local source exist. It need not even be cited in the article, but editors should be satisfied that the organization received at least a tiny bit of attention from just one source, instead of only receiving attention from its local newspaper. "One" out of the "multiple" required to establish notability leaves you with the possibility of including dozens or hundreds of local sources.
• EVENT limits the value of local sources because attention from a small-town newspaper is not evidence of attention from "the world at large" (that phrase is a direct quote from WP:N). ORG identically limits the value of local sources because attention solely from a small-town newspaper is still not evidence of attention from "the world at large".
• Whether an article must conform with the GNG or one of the many SNGs is a decision made at AFD by the editors participating there. The rule is not "meet the lowest of the available standards, and we guarantee that your article won't be deleted". In the case of local organizations and businesses, the higher standard is normally applied.
• There is no rule against a guideline using (and meaning) must. See WP:PGE and WP:POLICY, which says of both policies and guidelines, "Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must [do whatever is required]".
• "Private" is not a synonym for "commercial". Most private schools are non-profits in the US. Thousands of others are commercial entities. The rules are fundamentally the same for both.
• "Unlikely to survive deletion processes" is synonymous with "non-notable". Therefore these two sentences say effectively the same thing: if the org has never been noticed by anyone outside its hometown, then prepare to have the article deleted.
• The concept of regional media is not "US-centric". See w:de:Liste österreichischer Zeitungen for a list of regional newspapers in Austria. List of newspapers in the United Kingdom has regional newspapers for England and Wales. There are quite a few excellent regional papers in Germany and India.
• The GNG survives quite poorly without this restriction, unless your definition of "quite well" includes unfairly surprising good-faith editors with a list of unwritten rules during AFD. These "rules" about local sources being worth less than non-local sources (i.e., not worth as much as non-local sources, not being worthless/valueless) have been used for years and years at AFD. I think it is more helpful to put everyone on the same footing by writing down what the community actually wants—which is not, as it happens, attention solely from a hometown newspaper with very limited circulation and quite possibly reviewing every single restaurant in town, in alphabetical order so that there cannot being any hard feelings among either subscribers or advertisers.

And with that, I'd like to encourage you to stop thinking about schools and train stations (two areas that we've repeatedly proven can meet this standard with a small amount of work). I want you to start thinking about restaurants and gasoline stations and car dealerships. When you're trying to decide whether a restaurant is notable, do you want a small-town weekly newspaper, with a circulation maybe 1,000 and a staff of exactly two (both of whom the restaurant owner has probably known by name since they were all kids together), to be treated the same as a restaurant review in Kronen Zeitung? And if you think it unfair to make every single small business in a small town be "notable", largely because their tiny local newspaper prints just about anything about anything that's happening in town, while only the relatively important ones in a large city get any notice, then how exactly would you describe that difference to people reading this guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I stopped reading when I got to, "In the case of local organizations and businesses, the higher standard is normally applied."  No, I don't agree, and I think that an argument like that at AfD would sound like Wikilawyering.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's fine, I guess. I hope that you noticed that I am merely stating a fact about what does happen, rather than expressing an opinion about what should happen. But if you don't want to deal with reality – if nothing else matters because all those AFD participants are saying things you don't want them to say – then maybe there's not much point in your participation here after all.  :-( WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Curious to know what Lila would think of one of her staff (a community liaison, no less!) ordering someone off a guideline talk page simply because they dare to disagree. Not a good look, I have to say. Orderinchaos 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It's impossible for me to be "ordering someone off" when he previously announced that s/he stopped reading solely because he didn't appreciate a plain statement of a relevant fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Technicalities don't really excuse that you were clearly trying for a "chilling effect". I'd suggest not digging when in a hole to be a good strategy at this point. Orderinchaos 09:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• WP:NSPORTS says "local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE" I think that's the point. Some local press coverage reads like WP:ROUTINE announcement; some is just press coverage. Certainly we can't write an encyclopedic article if they are the only sources we can find. However, some local paper articles do contain in-depth coverage, such as coverage of the organization's history, cultural importance, etc. ( In my own view, this article contributes to establishing notability of Shanghai Natural History Museum. Actually it's not a local source. I've seen much deeper coverage of other topics in some local sources though.) Whether the source is local is not that important, while its independence and depth is. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If a tiny local newspaper decides to run restaurant reviews of all (five) of the restaurants in town, do you believe that the source is independent? If you lived there, you would know that the sports editor was a bartender at one of them—but this won't be mentioned in the story. Does that change your opinion? If you grew up there, you would know that the journalist and the restaurant's manager were high school sweethearts—but this won't be mentioned in the story. Does that change your opinion? If you follow town politics, you'll notice that the editor and the owner are on opposite sides of town politics—but this won't be mentioned in the story. Does that change your opinion? If you know the publisher, you'll know that he has an editorial policy of boosterism: the future of his business depends on promoting the town as a great place to live. All the restaurants received favorable reviews, even the one "restaurant" that is nothing more than a hot dog stand attached to a gasoline station. Does that change your opinion?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• I offer no apologies for giving these guidelines some much needed scrutiny. I have watched this page for a long time, but I have reviewed the archives anyway, and I have found no evidence of any real consensus in favour of not counting "local sources" when it comes to notability. AfD participants can say what they like, but WP:N is very clear that SNGs provide an alternative path to notability rather than imposing additional requirements. As it stands, if people at AfD are demanding otherwise, then they are acting against current policy, in the same way that those that cite WP:OUTCOMES as policy are doing so. If a ban on "local sources" counting towards notability (this is an accurate description of the current wording; local coverage alone cannot be counted towards notability) is necessary then it should be in the WP:GNG as well as or instead of being here. I've heard the argument that WP:N discreetly includes such a ban before, but such arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. "The world at large" wording does not go against local coverage, and interpreting it in that way implies that only international sources should count towards notability – as regional or national coverage isn't "the world at large" either – so I think it's fair to conclude that this interpretation is wrong. A more accurate interpretation is that this a short way of saying that third-party and independent sources are needed to count towards notability, particularly given that this language is in the nutshell rather than in the actual guideline.
• I do think using the word "must" in guidelines is problematic and inherently contradictory, but that's really for discussion elsewhere – as I've already stated, this is already common practice which is why I didn't challenge it before. On the wording of WP:AUD in general, I'm remain open minded, but as cited above, simple routine announcements or coverage is already disallowed to prevent run-of-the-mill institutions being considered notable, so a blanket ban is not necessary. There maybe isolated cases of some local publications not being truly independent but they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and I have to say I don't think this issue is limited to just "local sources". In any case, just treating all local sources worldwide as the same makes no sense at all. On the issue of regional verses local coverage, yes that distinction might work very well in some countries such as the UK and the USA, but in other places it doesn't work well at all. Australia is a good example, and I will elaborate on this if necessary and if others don't do so. There are plenty of other problems too, and I'm really just getting warmed up here – for example, dealing with websites, which are worldwide by definition so the entire concept of scope is highly blurred in those cases.
• Overall, if it is considered necessary to retain WP:AUD, then I think the wording should be on the lines that the scope of coverage can be considered when assessing notability, but it is not a dictating factor, and the mere fact that only "local sources" are used does not disqualify an article from meeting notability requirements. CT Cooper · talk 16:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You keep saying things like {{xt|"I have found no evidence of any real consensus in favour of not counting "local sources""), and I'm starting to wonder if I should find a translator. There is no ban on local sources. Local sources definitely count towards notability. However, there is one, rather small limitation: there must be one non-local source that at least mentions the subject. Local sources can "count" for 99% of the notability and 100% of the content. If the only source of information about your business is a tiny newspaper that only prints information about the local residents, then your business really isn't notable, no matter how many stories you convince your neighbor or friend (who runs the newspaper) to publish about your business, or how long they are. A local newspaper might decide to do an in-depth story on the church being re-painted or getting new carpet put in: the fact that it was published doesn't mean that the church deserves an article of Wikipedia.
  • SNGs provide alternatives. They do not necessarily provide easier routes. What people do at AFD is our actual policy. The guidelines exist to give people information about the consensus at AFDs.
  • The concept of a regional newspaper works just fine down under: see List of newspapers in Australia for dozens of examples of regional newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Here's one for you: Broome Senior High School. Biggest high school in the Kimberleys, main school in a key tourist town, but 2,240 km from the nearest regional newspaper (if one assumes WA to be the region), clearly notable on its own, but in order to meet this guideline it has to rely on a news story about a disaster. If the disaster (which only got momentary attention) hadn't occurred, as was the case for many years of its history, only local sources would be available. Not even the first time I've seen this particular problem. I suspect you're misreading the word "regional" at the Australian newspapers article to mean what you think it means - here it actually means "country". Orderinchaos 22:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Have another source. It has nothing to do with the fire, and it's non-local coverage by regional news media. This wasn't even hard: it took me two minutes to find that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the guideline is in English and all discussion in this talk page is in English, then I do not see why anyone would need a translator. At worst, there is a trivial disagreement over the use of a few words. It would of course help if the guideline itself was straight on the issue. The current wording of "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." almost contradicts itself by saying that local media is not an indication of notability, then it says it is, except there has to be at least one "non-local source". Clearly, there is a ban, a ban on "local sources" establishing notability, which is only slightly different from a ban on local sources counting towards notability. I will make this distinction clear in future remarks.
    • Really I would say if anything, a ban on "local sources" establishing notability is even less logical than banning them from counting towards notability. Either a source is suitable to be counted towards notability or it can't, and this rule results in some absurd situations which ironically often go against the spirit of WP:EVENT, to which I note has been used repeatedly to justify this ban. For example Business A could have fifty "local sources", all independent and reliable, covering it from a long period of time which has allowed a good article to be written. Yet following this guideline, this well written article on Business A should be deleted. Then we have business B, with three "local sources" covering it, again all independent and reliable, but we also have one "national source" covering a one-off robbery – so this one incident suddenly makes this Business B notable under this guideline. Business B might be notable under the WP:GNG, but it shouldn't pass while Business A doesn't.
    • WP:N is absolutely clear on how SNGs operate. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true: [...] It meets either the general notability guideline below or [bold added] the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." The meaning of "or" is that an article has to follow one or the other, not both. Some editors may choose to ignore it, but the meaning is clear. I would argue given that WP:N is one of the core guidelines of this project and any significant changes have to subject to widespread community consensus (with notifications on WP:CENT etc), its contents overrides local discussions, such as ones on this talk page and at individual AfDs in the event of a contradiction per WP:CONLIMITED. Really the whole argument "this guideline has to say local sources can't establish notability because people at AfD say so" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, since people at AfD will say that because it says so on the guideline! In any case, I'm doubtful any significant number of articles deleted on grounds of local sources not establishing notability would not have been deleted anyway on other grounds, for example, the sources provided only being routine coverage. And in practice in certain areas WP:AUD is being regularly ignored, such as with schools, which is probably why not many people have made too much of a fuss over it before now.
    • People from Australia who know the media well there seem to have a different opinion. Putting aside the fact that local third-party sources go beyond newspapers, the argument to which this rule seems to be based, that being that every "local newspaper" in the entire world is in cahoots with local business or residents, while "regional newspapers" never have this problem is just nonsense, not to mention highly insulting to local journalism. Such things have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with evidence presented in each case – it is worth bearing in mind that accusing a specific newspaper of such things may be considered libellous. In my local area the local newspapers don't even print restaurant reviews – and almost all news coverage such as restaurant opening would fall under routine coverage. CT Cooper · talk 15:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

actually, in each subject specific guideline this can be specified differently. The right way to do it is to make sure the guideline says what it means. (as does WP:PROF, for example which has always explicitly said it is an alternative. It can sometimes be an additional requirement beyond the GNG. 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

WP:N is clear on how SNGs fit in with the WP:GNG. SNGs can say what they wish but they will always be an alternative path to notability, not an additional requirement, at least not an enforceable one, as policy is clear that any article can be presumed notable if it passes the GNG. CT Cooper · talk 11:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• What I see interesting is the very large bad faith blanket assumption in the honesty, integrity and reliability of local papers over that of the Regional/National brands when experience shows us they arent the pillars of honesty, integrity or reliability we pretend them to be. The "collective of information" over time is the more important aspect regardless of the size of the newspaper that printed the story, even a local newspaper cant avoid the fact false reviews wont change reality that continuation of them are more likely to quickly destroy its reader/revenue base than that of a national rag with deep pocketed owners. Gnangarra 23:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not impugning their honesty, integrity, or reliability. We're impugning their selectivity: a local newspaper will frequently run stories on just about anything that happens in town: Restaurant opened? Write a story. Restaurant failed? Write another story. Every single church in a small town can count on newspaper coverage at some point; the larger and/or better connected ones can assume multiple stories each year. In a very small town, the local newspaper will run stories about the fact that someone's grandchildren visited for Christmas. Do two of those ("multiple") make the grandkids notable? No? So why should two stories in exactly the same small-town newspaper make the local restaurant notable?
    Small-town newspapers tend to be a bit indiscriminate. They're "reliable"—they get their facts straight—but they publish things that nobody outside the town would care about, and the coverage is not proportional. Treating attention in a small-town weekly as being equal to attention in a national newspaper means that we can have articles about every single restaurant in any town with a population of 5,000 or so people, but that otherwise identical restaurants (possibly even owned by the same people) that happen to be located in a large city are somehow non-notable. This is a nonsensical outcome: similar restaurants should get similar treatment on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • All of which means we basically can't use regional newspapers in Australia (which you were extolling a couple of days ago) because the vast majority of them listed on the page you linked don't even serve 2,000, let alone 5,000. This is getting more confusing by the minute. Orderinchaos 09:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • A town of 5,000 does not mean a circulation of 5,000, despite managing editors fervently wishing that even the local babies would subscribe to their papers. A population of 5,000, in a perfectly average US town, likely means about 700 paid subscribers for a daily paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Which only goes back-up the point of Orderinchaos, in which many Australian "regional papers" have a smaller circulation than "local papers" elsewhere. Also claims that "we are not insulting local journalists" would gain greater credibility if these silly slurs against local journalism came to an end. No reasonable person thinks that babies will subscribe to a newspaper. CT Cooper · talk
• Delete. I agree with comments above to the effect that WP:AUD should be deleted. James500 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• There seems to be an elephant in the room for Australian editors anyway - the existence of Trove, the NLA online catalogue of materials relevant to Australia, I have not seen in my limited viewing - a challenge of a source that is linked to Trove - and it contains newspaper sources for events/places that simply do not show up on the dreaded GNG and similar beasts, and it extracts items from newspapers that are regularly used to establish the legitimacy of a subject - as to whether it can be proved that a subject found in Trove sources can be denied veracity and consequently notability, hmm. I used to be an editor of a small regional newspaper in a small Australian mining town some decades ago, and I would consider that to discount subjects or sources due to lack of google hits means absolutely nothing. satusuro 11:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's always frustrated me that people say, "There's nothing on Google, so this obviously important organization isn't notable". A good search means figuring out what newspapers are in the area, and searching their websites directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Which of course only works if the organisation is about 5 years old or less. There's a well-known problem with the "black hole of history" between the end of effective copyright in the 50s and the start of mass online archiving in the early 2000s. Even going back a few years often hits unbreachable paywalls. Orderinchaos 09:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Hitting paywalls in a search often tells you enough about notability. You'll see how many articles, sometimes their length, and always their topics. If you see a series of headlines like "Foo Restaurant opens", "Foo Restaurant sued in wage dispute", "Foo Restaurant wins award", "Foo Restaurant burned down; owner vows to rebuild", and "Foo Restaurant owner arrested for arson", then an experienced editor can usually make a good guess about the notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Assuming you can even afford the hefty amount involved to get onto the website to do the search in the first place. News Ltd which owns 70% of Australian newspapers has this specific problem - you need to be a member, and membership doesn't come cheap ($1.75 a search!). I think it's time to just concede that your US-centric view of the world isn't a global one, that this guideline is meant to be global and that its present wording isn't doing the job. You've heard from plenty of non-Americans telling you that this is so, but your responses seem to be trying to pick holes rather than be constructive. I admire your solo efforts to block change, but consensus is very much somewhere else on this page. Orderinchaos 22:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Nobody promised that sources would be free. In fact, we say quite the opposite. In some cases, to get access to sources, you'll have to physically travel to the source, which is even more expensive that signing up for one of the many online archives. However, limited searching is free to anyone on that website: you can get search results of up to 20 articles in the last 10 years for one paper at a time, free, whenever you want. Here are three more that mention Broome Senior High School. Unlimited searching requires a subscription account but searching is free. Once you have an account, the charges are only for downloading the articles, not for searching. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• We have tried to add something like AUD to the GNG, but found it too broad considering the scope of the GNG, thus leaving it to the SNGs to be more specific where the situation might occur. This primarily localized it to ORG and for NSPORTS. Removal of AUD from here would be a poor move as it does accurately meet the fact that coverage only from local sources does not make a business/organization notable. The language of AUD is good in that it is not specific about this, allowing edge cases where necessary. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• One reason such a proposal has never been implemented as there is nothing close to a wider community consensus to the idea. I have yet to come across any valid reason why a ban on local sources of any kind could not be incorporated into the GNG. As has been already explained, that is the only way such a ban could be enforceable. The proposal being made is to revise AUD, that could include complete removal or it could not. No specific plan has been formulated yet. In any case, if there is one thing this discussion has revealed is that neither a ban on local sources establishing notability or counting towards notability is not a "fact" in any sense of the word. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be written not to ban local sources in an article, but the contribution of local source towards notability is an issue, and while I can't put any absolute number (it will be gamed) , a local business which has roughly 50% of its notability from local sources is likely notable for WP, while if it was 90% or more, likely not notable, but it will depend, as well, on exactly those local sources. This all keeping in mind IAR.
• The prior approach at GNG was to consider that local sources are less independent when discussing local issues than regional/national ones, but it was very hard to find a way to happily codify this. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I too would oppose removing WP:AUD. And we definitely should separate the issue of "venue of coverage" from the issue of "depth of coverage"

Consider the following... "Joe's Gulp & Gas", a combination restaurant and filling station, opens in a small town. The local home town newspaper (total circulation limited to the 100 residents of the town) publishes a full page review raving about how wonderful the food is. Despite the length of that review, I don't think it is enough to off set the problem with the "venue of coverage". A local small circulation paper is simply not large enough to establish that the restaurant is notable.

Now... suppose that, the next week, the New York Times publishes a guide to "The best small town eateries", and includes a short paragraph on Joe's Gulp & Gas... While the "depth of coverage" is somewhat weak, that short NYT review will be seen by millions of readers. I would say that the NYT review is an indication that the restaurant is notable (indeed it may be responsible for making the restaurant notable), despite the shallowness of coverage. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is saying that one local source could establish notability. Multiple sources is almost always required. I'm also not completely against the idea that sources with a higher scope can be given a greater weight compared to local sources, not withstanding the observation that there has been a tendency to overgeneralize on this issue and each individual case should be looked at on its merits. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• We appear to be edging towards an acceptable revision (not removal) of the section. Something along the lines of "In assessing notability, any given degree of coverage will be assigned greater weight if it appears in media sources with larger size and geographical distribution of readership (or audience)". This avoids drawing a hard-&-fast line between "regional" and "local" media. Total removal of the section, however, would leave us with no basis for rating three sentences in the New York Times more highly than the same text in the Noysterville News. The section may also be retitled "Readership (size and range)", as (a) most of the discussion has centred on newspapers, and (b) I don't think we are asked to consider any other imputed characteristic of the readership (or audience) beyond how many and how widespread they are: Noyster (talk), 11:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I agree that the emerging consensus seems to be towards a revision of that nature, and against total removal. CT Cooper · talk 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. Not one of the examples given in support of WP:AUD is obviously an organization.They all appear to be buildings (or rooms in a building). Churches, schools, restauraunts, train stations and gas stations are all places. My advice would be to delete the entire section per WP:TNT. It is so muddled that it would be better to start from scratch. James500 (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's just wrong (except for train stations). A restaurant is not a building; it's a business. A school is a group of people (teachers) who teach another group of people (students).
  A train station is a place. The organization is the Railway company that operates it. A church building is a place (as is a parish), but the church itself is the association of people. When someone says "that church failed to protect children from sexual predators", they're not talking about some pile of bricks and glass. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• The Compact OED defines a restaurant as "a place" and a church as "a building". It does give an alternative definition of Church as an organization,but the example you gave (fitting a carpet) clearly refers to something being done to a building. The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary defines a gas station as "a place" (and it is a collection of petrol pumps with a shop attached): [1]. "Dictionary of Architecture and Building Construction" defines a school as "a building or complex": [2]. Other sources do call it an institution, but this will only matter if they occupy multiple sites or have moved from one location to another (not likely). The examples offered are ones which are likely to be practically indistinguishable from the single location they occupy. James500 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines a restaurant as "a business establishment where meals or refreshments may be purchased". Wiktionary says, "An eating establishment in which diners are served food at their tables." Our encyclopedia article says that a restaurant "is a business which prepares and serves food and drink to customers in return for money".

I'm prepared to conclude either that OED was either being sloppy or that they mistakenly believed that their readers were not trying to wikilawyer businesses into geographic features. Either way, a restaurant is still not a location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at GBooks, I see quite a few dictionaries and other sources which say a restaurant is a "place" or an "eating house" (my emphasis) including Webster, Funk and Wagnell and case law: [3][4]. My idea of a restaurant is a place, that consists of a dining room and a kitchen, where a business is conducted. I would expect ORG to apply to a corporation that owned multiple restaurants. James500 (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that a restaurant/shcool/church is both an organization and a place/location/building. Thus, both WP:ORG and WP:GEOFEAT apply. How to apply them is essentially a balancing game... Editors need to determine which is really notable (the business or the location), and focus the article based on that determination. In some cases it will be the building that is notable... in which case the business might not even be mentioned, or only mentioned in passing. (and vise versa). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This guideline serves no useful purpose. The point of GNG is to ensure that we have adequate reliable sources to write a properly cited article. It shouldn't matter if the sources are read by only a few people. Many esoteric scientific topics are of interest to very few people, but we don't exclude them on the grounds that they are only discussed in academic journals of "limited circulation." It makes no sense to analogously discriminate against local media. Wikipedia ought to have a broader scope than mainstream national newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find Noyster's suggestion reasonable: "In assessing notability, any given degree of coverage will be assigned greater weight if it appears in media sources with larger size and geographical distribution of readership (or audience)", but I have a couple misgivings. One is that this language could be misinterpreted as prohibiting trade journals or academic journals from establishing notability. Another is that it is simply too vague, and is likely to result in endless AfD debates about how widely some sources are read. For these reasons, I think the "Presumed" caveat in WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to deal with cases of local newspapers reporting on the town church and the restaurant around the corner, high school papers reporting on the school band, and the like, and AUD ought to be removed. If we want to have a guideline that deals with these cases explicitly, it should be specific to avoid being misapplied elsewhere. For example, the guideline could say that individuals and local establishments, organizations, events, or landmarks such as businesses which are frequented almost exclusively by local people, require coverage by at least one non-local source in order to be notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Individuals, events and landmarks are outside the scope of this guideline. James500 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• What about sources with no ties to any particular region? Will a reliable trade magazine with a weekly viewership of 1,000 professionals (say http://www.janes.com/) be given the same weight as a small-town newspaper? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've brought up the point that many sources have no geographical ties before and never gotten a clear answer. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, I think this discussion has run its course and it's now time to think about the next step. However, Wikipedia slows down over Christmas so I was planning to wait until shortly after the New Year before moving forward. I will notify all participants in this discussion of any future activity so no one will miss out. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia has an international audience. This section actually breaks Wikipedia's rules. Otherwise, templates like {{Globalize}} wouldn't exist.--Mr. Guye (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this response, Mr. Guye, and I wonder if you've misunderstood the question. You have just said that because "Wikipedia has an international audience", we should articles about small businesses whose only possible sources are their own hometown newspapers. It is impossible to write from an international perspective when you are using parochial sources. Imagine that I want to create an article about WhatamIdoing's Gas Station. Imagine that the only independent reliable source that discusses my small business is The Mulberry Advance (the smallest newspaper in Kansas). The newspaper circulation is 125 (one hundred twenty-five) local residents, representing just one out of every 57 million people on the planet. How does using that tiny newspaper as proof that my filling station deserves an article on the English Wikipedia make us provide a global perspective?
Perhaps a second question is in order: Do you think that if I get the editor of that newspaper to write a few articles about my tiny business, that the international English Wikipedia would benefit from having an article about my local business? If so, I can arrange those articles: it's a very small town, and I'll see him every Sunday at church, and every Tuesday at the diner, and the newspaper office is just two doors down from me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't understand WP:AUD. I take what I said back. I apologize, WhatamIdoing. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Guye's original point may have been flawed, but so was the argument given in response, which seems to be rehash of the old "local interests aren't relevant to an enyclopedia with a global audience" argument as covered at WP:ITSLOCAL. Local interests are indeed insignificant when thinking on a global perspective, but so are regional and national interests – of the seven billion people on Earth, only a small minority will have any great interest in what's happening nationally within the United States, let alone what's going on regionally within Kansas. At a global level the involvement of a 100 people, a 1000 people, or a 100,000 people is quibbling with trivia – they are all tiny and insignificant – so given that WP:AUD treats regional sources like sacred cows, using that argument defend WP:AUD is self-defeating. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, but that doesn't mean everything in it has to be of interest to every person on Earth. If Wikipedia judged notability that way then we would have something like a four-digit figure number of articles, not over four-and-a-half million. CT Cooper · talk 23:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If the reliable sources outside of my immediate close neighbors (NB: not you or any other editor) deem my gas station too unimportant to write about, then the English Wikipedia should follow their lead. I have never said that every article must be interesting to every person. I have never even said that every article must be interesting to 0.1% of humans. But I (and this guideline, for years and years) am saying that the subject needs to be important to at least one (1) reliable source that is (a) not written by my friends and neighbors and (b) not writing about every single local business (e.g., to avoid offending their friends and neighbors by being "biased" or "unfair" to my rival gas station). WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

All I did was run the points made above to a logical conclusion in order to show that they were flawed. In other words, I subjected it to the reductio ad absurdum test, and it failed. I think it's already been established in this thread through the efforts of multiple editors that the concept that every single "local source" in the world writes about every single local interest without thought is nonsense, and even if that was the case – then logic would suggest that "local sources" should be excluded from counting towards notability completely, yet it has been persistently clear by the defender(s) of WP:AUD that it doesn't do this and therefore it apparently isn't anti-local sources. Seems like a case of having ones cake and eating it to me. Regardless, as brought-up multiple times, Wikipedia:Notability#Common circumstances deals with routine and self-promoting coverage at all levels, as this issue is not unique to "local sources" as WP:AUD seems to presume. CT Cooper · talk 18:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this clause being used at AfD to exclude newspapers like The Detroit Free Press and The Seattle Times from consideration of notabilty because they are "local". Those are cities and the largest papers in the cities. In our zeal to exclude stories about small-town gas stations (which is an extreme case that in practice rarely comes up), we've crafted a clause that is so vague that it can be applied to almost any newspaper. I think it's doing more harm than good. If we can't define "local" we should get rid of it. Nitpickingly, I'd also point out that our "on the other hand" is not functioning normally. We say "national is notable" and on the other hand "local is not notable". Those are two ways of saying the same thing. If we want to use "on the other hand", we have to present the "other" view, that is the opposite one, for when local is notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What AUD should be pegged to is circulation size (not the location of publication)... The larger the circulation size of a paper, the more we can say that that paper "confers" notability (because more people are likely to read its articles). The smaller the circulation size, the less we can say that it confers notability (fewer people will read its articles). In other words... the flaw with "local" papers isn't that they originate from a small town ... it's that they tend to have a very small circulation size. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. If "circulation" determines reliability and notability, then Chicago's free weekly RedEye, with a circulation of about a quarter million, is better than the half the regional or state-wide daily newspapers, which often struggle to stay above 100K. More people read RedEye each week than there are households in the entire state of Wyoming. The biggest daily newspaper in Wyoming has a paid circulation of less than one-tenth that—but The Casper Star-Tribune, whose subscribers cover the whole state and even outside it, and not the Chicagoland entertainment weekly that is read mostly be 20-somethings on the El, is the better indication of regional attention.

I think you could use that idea only if you're comparing paid daily circulation numbers against other paid daily circulation numbers, but it wouldn't necessarily deal with the problem of parochialism. I think the most appropriate test is the one we've got: Does the paper cover a region (or more), or is its focus on the local area?

(Margin, the reason that many guidelines say things like "X is good, and not-X is not-good", is because different editors understand and respond better to the different ways of saying it. Verbosity is not a goal, but repeating things and re-phrasing ideas in different words does seem to improve comprehension [or at least to reduce wikilawyering].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well... I would argue that being featured in RedEye (with its circulation of a quarter million) would indicate a reasonably high degree of notability... even though it's audience is located "locally" in Chicago. I think the comparison to The Casper Star-Tribune is flawed because both papers are solidly on the "large enough in circulation to establish Notability" side of the line.

A better comparison of local scope papers would be to compare RedEye to the (Essex county, NY) Valley News]. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I was really picking nits there, about the language. I'm fine with presenting one side only, multiple times. But if we aren't going to present the other side we should strike "on the other hand" and replace it with a period or semicolon, or "By the same token". – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm not fine with a one-sided presentation. Once again, the rules are evolving "largely through the efforts of those seeking to exclude content". By combined print/online readership, the Detroit Free Press and the Seattle Times both serve markets that are larger than the population of the 10 smallest states. [5] There is tremendous diversity just in the cities, never mind the region. Deletionists shouldn't be able to dismiss large cites and major papers as "local" or "parochial".

If we are going to talk about audience, I think we need the concept of a domain. That's an argument I make sometimes. For example, the NYT sometimes reviews indie films. That's a domain covered by the NYT, so it's reasonable to require coverage by a mainstream paper. But as far as I can tell the NYT has never printed a story about "C compilers". So in the domain of software development, which is clearly a major one, we should accept coverage by www.eetimes.com (278 articles on "C compilers"). That seems like a much more productive approach to me. In the context of 21st-century culture, or historically, what is a major domain and what are the major publications in those domains? As an inclusionist, I'm also willing to go with major publications in minor domains. If there's a recognizable and non-trivial audience, what is a major publication in that domain? This ties into the discussion of trade papers. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletionists shouldn't be dismissing regional or statewide papers as "only local", because they aren't "only local". It's common enough to find people that are unfamiliar with specific sources. Usually they just need to be informed about the facts.

Blueboar, RedEye is also weaker because it's an entertainment tabloid aimed at a particular demographic in a particular place. In practice, four column–inches in RedEye is likely to be less valuable at AFD than the same four inches in a paid weekly with the same circulation, or four inches in a regional or national weekly, or even four inches in a daily with lower circulation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally I'm happy to accept that newspapers with a larger circulation should get greater weight than those with a smaller circulation, though these things should always be considered on a case-by-case basis e.g. the nature and extent of the topic's coverage. I think the whole The Detroit Free Press and The Seattle Times one again shows the clear flaw of WP:AUD as currently written, which is that brushing off "local sources" as all being the same doesn't make any sense, and that we should return to the core principles of the WP:GNG, rather than having arbitrary rules. CT Cooper · talk 19:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. Yesterday I !voted to delete an article about the history of the Fire Department in a small South Carolina town. A place where a big event is someone driving a vehicle through the front window of the local Hobby Lobby, and the captain of the Fire Department makes a comment about the driver's medical condition. Obviously we need a way to exclude stories like that. Ideally it should grow out of the core principles of verifiability, etc. Something that makes this one special among the thousands of small-town fire departments. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that some editor mis-labeling a regional or statewide newspaper as "local" is an example of a clear flaw in any guideline. I think it's an example of ignorance on the part of an editor. We cannot expect every single editor to recognize every single regional or statewide publication. We can, however, educate individual editors when they make mistaken guesses about the nature of specific sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the clear lack of any clear definition of what is "regional" or "local", I think an editor could be forgiven for being confused. CT Cooper · talk 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. We have enough articles about trivial subjects as it is. We don't want to be featuring articles on small shopping centers, pizzerias and veterinary clinics that are of no interest whatsoever beyond the localities where they were situated. The fact is that some small-town newspapers are so hungry for news that they will publicize anything. This can be and is exploited to produce promotional articles of no encyclopedic value. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Have you actually read the discussion above? This comment just seems to be a repeat of the anti-local sources rhetoric which has been debunked multiple times. CT Cooper · talk 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than "which has been debunked multiple times", I think a phrase like "that you have personally disagreed with multiple times" would be a more accurate description of the past discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If a reasonable rebuttal to the debunking is provided, then I will listen to it; repeating the same point over and over again is not rebuttal. In any case, I believe the discussion shows that I am not the only person which has found holes in the "all 'local sources' everywhere in the world do x, y, and z" way of thinking. CT Cooper · talk 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Example

Here is an example of a business (a mall) of exclusively local interest. There are a lot of local sources about individual stores opening/closing at this shopping mall and a legal dispute between the mall owners and one of the outfits that were leasing space. A substantial article could be made using local reliable sources. However, I felt a bit itchy about how meaningful an encyclopedic article is about a mall and individual stores opening/closing there. user:Coretheapple pointed me to this discussion and I think such discussions are always helped with examples. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that citing actual examples is a good idea. However, I wouldn't extend that to AfDs which are under way as the most important point, the final outcome, hasn't been determined yet and any discussion here may be seen as influencing the outcome. In this example, the article as it stands only has one source which doesn't work, so at face value it clearly isn't notable. On the examples of coverage given, most of that would fall almost certainly fall under non-significant coverage as covered by the WP:GNG. The independence of the sources, WP:SPIP, and WP:N#Events would also have to be considered. I think it's also worth emphasising again that SNGs only given an alternative path to notability; they cannot impose additional requirements, as per the lead of WP:N. As it stands, I'm not willing to presume this is a good example of an article that should be deleted; I'm sure many users in good standing believe that local shopping centres, like local high schools, deserve Wikipedia articles. CT Cooper · talk 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I am myself undecided, I don't think any speculation about trying to sway the discussion is warranted. I did nominate it, but you'll see in the nomination that I specified it needed more discussion, but I myself am unfamiliar with our standards in this area. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I deliberately worded my comments carefully in order not to make any accusation nor to speculate that anyone of attempting to sway the discussion. I was just making the point that finished AfDs would be better examples to cite in a discussion such as this one for that and other reasons. WP:OUTCOMES is a good place to find out what the general standards are in this area, though it is vague on the subject of shopping centres. Unfortunately, this appears to be the sort of argue where inclusionists and deletionists will disagree, so the outcomes of the AfD may well be a roll of the dice. CT Cooper · talk 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the introduction of WP:N that says SNGs cannot impose additional requirements. Actually, the introduction says that even if the subject meets the GNG and/or relevant SNGs, that it still might not be notable. That indicates that "additional requirements" are indeed possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me. WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: [...] 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below or [emphasis added] the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Requirement "2." is that it passes WP:NOT, which does not include SNGs, except perhaps WP:EVENT which is essentially an extension of WP:NOTNEWS. The only other requirement that can be inferred is that content policy requirements such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are passed, which are not relevant here. CT Cooper · talk 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read the very next sentence, too: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." Also, everything is subject to NOT, including SNGs. SNGs that directly conflict with NOT need to be changed, and SNGs should never be interpreted in contradiction to NOT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, what I was saying in relation to requirement two was that topics can have an article if they do not conflict with WP:NOT. SNGs are indeed subject to WP:NOT, as are all content guidelines, but they are not part of the policy, therefore requirement two is irrelevant to this discussion. The purpose of notability guidelines is to establish whether a topic can be presumed to be notable or not. The guideline states"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: [...] 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below or [emphasis added] the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." The presence of the "or" is very clear – it means a topic can be presumed to be notable if it is demonstrated that it passes the WP:GNG, regardless of what an SNG says. In reverse, a topic can also be presumed to be notable if passes a relevant SNG, regardless of what the GNG says. The sentence "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." is reference to the reality that just because a topic is presumed notable doesn't mean it will merit it's own page – in some cases, a single article on multiple notable topics might be deemeed appropriate. The sentence following it, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." makes the actual meaning clear. There is nothing there which gives free license for an SNG to override the presumption of notability the GNG may give to a topic. CT Cooper · talk 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The general bias in the community is firmly against articles about local shopping centers. If they should be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, then they get merged to the ==Economy== section of their city (or other location). To use CT Cooper's analogy, they're treated like primary schools instead of high schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what someone deems to be a "local shopping centre". As as has come up before, the term "local" has never been, and possibly can never be, properly defined. Most villages I know have primary schools or equivalents, but not shopping centres, so I'm not sure the comparison is appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that some proper definitions have been known to exist.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dictionaries are normally good place to start when looking for definitions of words, but not so much when talking about notability matters on Wikipedia. For one thing, Wikipedia's very use of the term notable, is far more specific that the dictionary definition suggests. As for the dictionary definitions of the term, "local" they are almost useless. Taking the definitions at face value, one could argue the term "local source", as being used here, is a misnomer as all sources are local sources as a source is always local to some place. Putting that aside, what might be considered "local" in one place may be considered "regional" in another, so creating a workable worldwide definition of a "local source" is very difficult. Then there's the issue of mediums – all websites are worldwide by definition – as has already been pointed out. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trade journals and trade publications

Looking over WP:RSN archives, the community deems industry trade publications as reliable sources for what they report. However, there's an underlying view in those discussions that coverage in trade journals, while reliable, isn't a valid indicator of notability.

A trade publication may be reliable and independent as required by this guideline, but are they really secondary sources?

To me, they fall somewhere between primary and secondary. A trade publication may have reporting staff and editorial staff, perform fact checking, etc., but its purpose is to provide information to a specialized audience rather than to an audience of regional or national geographic scope. Also, many articles in trade journals are actually press releases rewritten but it's hard to tell when this occurs; in any case a primary source is a primary source whether it's published verbatim or rewritten.

I've come across company articles that rely heavily of industry trade publications to bulk up the sources, and I'm inclined toward deleting such articles if they come up in AFD decisions.

Perhaps I missed it but I couldn't find this point discussed here, and trade publications are not mentioned in the guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends (a lot) on the source. Anything along the lines of "compare and contrast" ("Which space modulator produces the most satisfying Earth-shattering kaboom?") is "analysis" and therefore secondary. I'd expect to find a fair bit of this in a trade publication.

Have you read WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:Secondary does not mean independent yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Those essays don't address this specific issue.

Certainly, analysis qualifies as secondary. I'm referring to company news that isn't obviously a press release, for example this one. Pieces like that are common in such publications, and commonly cited in company articles.

Actually, this guideline sort of does mention trade publications, as "media of limited interest and circulation" in WP:AUD. Perhaps a short clarifying sentence with examples would help, especially because circulation is hard to judge for web-based media (some respected trade publications are not print sources; one on photovoltaics comes to mind). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that particular source does seem to be pretty narrow in its interest, but I'm not sure that it's a "count for nothing at all" source. I wonder what other people think of it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the particular example I chose counts for nothing. I believe it is a reliable source of information that would be useful for an article. But does such coverage, if found only in trade publications like this, confer notability on a company? In decisions regarding deletion and also AFC submissions, I have been leaning toward "no" as a general guideline. But that's just my interpretation. As a meta:Precisionism adherent, I would prefer more clarity in the official guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am not in favour of this. Frankly, I would delete the existing reference to media of limited interest and circulation. I think "limited" is meaningless and the references to interest and circulation are likely to promote the lowest common denominator. This guideline needs to be cut back before any expansion is attempted. James500 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with James500: this guideline was probably never meant to say anything about trade journals and should be reworded (or eliminated) to make that clear. With the current wording, it could also be misinterpreted as applying to academic journals, which indeed are "media of limited interest and circulation." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• It perhaps needs clarifying (maybe in a footnote) as there's clearly some difficulty in interpretation, but to me it's clear: it's meant to apply to trade journals, to blogs, to industry catalogues and indexes, that have a limited readership. It's not because of their readership, i.e. it's not some crude numerical measure of how many people might have read it. It's the fact they focus on a particular industry, or a particular sector of it, and so cover it in far more depth than the mainstream press, reporting announcements from firms no matter how small and non-notable. The academic journal comparison is irrelevant; this is WP:ORG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• @JohnBlackburne: Academic journals can discuss organizations. They also generally satisfy the criteria you believe are the reason for these restrictions: they very likely "focus on a particular industry, or a particular sector of it, and so cover it in far more depth than the mainstream press...." Do you think that AUD should apply to academic journals? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: It is not clear. It is meaningless gibberish nonsense. There is no point in trying to guess what it might mean because it doesn't mean anything. It should just be ripped out. Once we have done that, we can think about whether any further expansion is necessary. James500 (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As for "trade journals", can you provide a reliable source that says they are all wholly indiscriminate in their coverage of organizations? James500 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What we seem to be discussing is difference between "range of audience" and "scope of audience". Range is based on geography (is the audience local, regional, national, international). Scope, on the other hand is based on expertise (is the audience specialists in a field, or the general public). A source with limited range rarely (if ever) establishes notability... but a source with limited scope can establish notability (depending on the range).

As with academic journals, trade journals usually have a limited scope (the audience is specialists and experts in the related trade)... but for notability purposes the important question is whether a given journal has a broad or narrow range. A plumbing trade journal only goes out to the 50 plumbers located in a rural county of Wyoming would not really qualify for establishing notability... On the other hand, a plumbing trade journal that goes out to the millions of plumbers around the world definitely would qualify for establishing notability. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to object to using this criterion as well, again since many academic journals would fail it. Many research communities are highly localized, including many that may produce research relevant to organizations or companies. For example, until very recently the overwhelming majority of chemical engineering research was done in the United States, and journals that focus on specific topics within that subject might be read by only a few research groups, which could be localized in, say, Texas, or a few universities in Texas. Still, academic journal articles should always count toward establishing notability. I think we should restrict the guideline to saying exactly what we mean, not try to generalize to some fundamental principle. It should say something like: "Local organizations and establishments, including as businesses, sports organizations, and places of worship, which are frequented mainly by people from a small geographic area such as a single municipality, cannot derive notability solely from media which is not distributed to a significantly wider audience than the residents of that area." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Places of worship are outside the scope of this guideline. James500 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll note as a point of interest that this article on promoting your business on Wikipedia advocates citing trade publications as a means to establish notability. Basically, if you aren't notable enough to get coverage in the mainstream press, fall back on trade journals and you're in. I've seen (and deleted) enough new articles about companies that follow this line of thinking — the articles were clearly created for publicity purposes, and the authors clearly believe that trade coverage is their SEO ticket to promoting themselves on Wikipedia. I've seen sufficient numbers of these to form the interpretation of this guideline that coverage only in trade publications constitutes very weak (if any) evidence of notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at what he says there, it doesn't seem that bad: "Trade publications, technically, aren’t suppose to count, but in practice this couldn’t be further from the truth. Even if it’s not the type of organization that’s achieved awareness in the masses, enough notability in your field works." I think notability in the field should count for as much as (or more than) a necessarily superficial article by a "mainstream" reporter on a deadline. Anyway, if you search on [site:socialfresh.com wikipedia], they have 145 articles on Wikipedia. Trade publications are mentioned in only one. From reading a few of them, the advice is that a PR approach doesn't work. What does work is to want to same thing that Wikipedia does, so you should want your article to have information that complies with our policies. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Amatulic: Notability is a topic guideline not a content guideline. Whether the creators of those Wikipedia articles intended the content of those Wikipedia articles to promote the topics of those Wikipedia articles is irrelevant to the notability of the topics. Wikipedia's article content does not affect the notability of any topic. James500 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per the above, there doesn't seem to be any example of something that isn't local, but has limited scope/readership that is agreed to not confer notability. As such, I removed the confusing bit. If there is actual consensus that all/most trade publications should be excluded, there should be actual discussion on that point and it should be explicit in the guideline. I see no evidence that the guideline was intended to do that. Naturally, indiscriminate coverage (which may apply to some trade publications) doesn't confer notability under the normal criteria - AUD wasn't needed for that (nor was it worded to say that). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: I would say the change accurately reflects the consensus above - the only counter-example offered as a magazine received by "50 plumbers located in a rural county of Wyoming". I would certainly think that qualifies as local... Considering, there is definitely actual confusion over the guideline as written, ho do you suggest it is rewritten/footnoted? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me give you an example then... A plumber's trade magazine with a total of 50 subscribers... but which are located in dispersed states. It is not local in its audience, but it still only reaches 100 plumbers. It has a very limited circulation. Surely a magazine with such a small circulation would not really help establish the notability of the things it writes about. This is why both circulation range and circulation size have to be considered. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the "of limited interest" side of things... let us suppose that there was a magazine called "Aglets Today" that catered to those who collect the tips of shoelaces as a hobby. The magazine might be considered highly reliable by those collectors. It may go out to every single aglet collector in the world. However, if there are only 50 people in the entire world who actually bother to collect aglets, the fact that the magazine contained a review of a new type of aglet would not make that new type of aglet notable. It would be of too limited interest. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the first example exists in practice, but if it did it would almost certainly be excluded for other reasons, specifically the lack of editorial control (and thus doubtful reliability). Such a small publication would certainly not have an editorial staff. The second example likewise probably would not have editorial oversight, although I suppose it could if it was operated as a hobbyist publication and the staff was voluntary. This raises a serious question though - how do you know a publication only goes to 50 people? It is (usually) easy enough to tell if a publication is reliable (publishes retractions, has editorial staff), but circulation is hard to determine unless it is large enough to warrant publication of official (audited) stats.

Do you have a suggestion for an alternate way to clarify the text. I know for a fact people way overuse the "limited interest" bit. I have even seen people argue that say Bloomberg fits the definition since it publishes "only business stories". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The issues with WP:AUD go far beyond this discussion over trade journals. There is a lot more to be done before WP:AUD can be considered "not disputed". CT Cooper · talk 13:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? This appears to be the only active thread on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The other threads may not be active, but there are issues raised in them that still need to be resolved. I will be starting another thread at some point to continue the discussion. If this particular discussion results in changes to WP:AUD, that's fine, though it may be followed by further changes soon after. CT Cooper · talk 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, of course. A full-scale RfC is probably needed at some point to have any chance at consensus for broad changes. If you start drafting one at some point, let me know and I'll see if I can help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability?

Hi,

Can anyone please help me?

I am receiving the following message on a Wikipedia page 'The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations' Here is a link to the page.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Discount_Centre

Can anyone give me some advice on what I need to change or ad to this page?

Thanks for your help,

R Head Rhead2015 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What you need are independent sources that discuss the company in some detail. It would help if they discuss what makes the company stand out from the thousands of other on-line discount websites that are out there. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What Blueboard said. If you cannot show that this company is worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia (which is not Yellow Pages), the page will likely be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This policy is being widely ignored by spammers and we are not enforcing it

Please see my draft piece for Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed. Any comments are appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus, the first thing you need to do is to change the word "policy" to "guideline". This is not a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Are restaurants different from other Orgs?

I note that many of our recent debates have revolved around WP:AUD, and the question of what makes restaurants notable. This got me thinking: Are restaurants in some way different from other types of orgs and companies? If so, would it make sense to hive the issue of notability for restaurants off into its own WP:Notability (restaurants) guideline? (note: I am not formally proposing that we do this... just want to have some preliminary discussion on the possibility). Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are my preliminary thoughts, and I am speaking about individual restaurants instead of chains. Restaurants are not fundamentally different from other businesses, but they do have distinctive characteristics. They are hyper-local, in the sense that proximity is a very important factor when people select a restaurant because it is rare that people say "let's go out to dinner" and pick a restaurant 100 miles away. Also, since people commonly eat three meals a day, there is a "run of the mill" character about the average restaurant. But restaurants get a lot of attention in reliable sources. Local reliable sources, for the most part. You know, "their meat-lovers pizza is great and they sponsor the local youth soccer league, and deliver all over town. Six beers on tap. Open until midnight Saturdays and Sundays". That kind of thing isn't significant coverage establishing notability in my book. When evaluating the notability of restaurants, I look for coverage in major newspapers and magazines. Books are even better. I look for a lengthy, detailed review discussing several dishes in detail, the culinary influences, the atmosphere, the history and the chef. I look for reviews by full time professional journalists, in particular professional restaurant reviewers. I look for multiple reliable sources. I look for sources published a long distance from the restaurant, indicating that is a "destination" restaurant. I look for Michelin stars, James Beard awards, and the like. I realize that my standards lead to "gourmet" restaurants being considered more notable than greasy spoons, but so it goes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

People are more willing to travel for a gourmet experience, so that's how the sources run. If you haven't read Tyler Cowen's book (ISBN 978-0525952664), then I had fun reading it, and you might find it to be an interesting contrast.

I don't think that we need a separate guideline for this. I think we just need to hold up our standards, which are that passing mentions, purely local (especially neighborhood) newspaper stories (alone), and routine restaurant reviews (especially of the "we're reviewing every restaurant in town" type) just don't count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• A restaurant is spectacularly different from "other" organisations in that it is definitely not an organisation at all. An individual restaurant is a building, or a set of rooms in a building, that consists of a dining room and a kitchen. Moreover, this building may not even be purpose built. I think can already identify at least two hotels (in a pub walks guide) that were formerly residences of nobility that were adapted. A chain of restaurants is an organisation. The whole point of an organisation is that it is something, such as a juristic person, that is intangible in the sense that it (at least arguably) really only exists on paper or in people's minds, and not as a physical object (such as a building). I think WP:ORG and WP:REST should be rewritten to reflect this, as what they presently say is makes no sense.
• "We're reviewing every restaurant in town" is not "routine" coverage if the collection of reviews appear together and only in a single issue of the periodical. I think a word more likely to describe that kind of coverage would be "indiscriminate".
• I do not think "run of the mill" is a valid argument against notability, because it is capable of producing clearly absurd results (eg deleting countries because they are not particularly large or wealthy). James500 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Funny, but Restaurant says that a restaurant is a business, not a building. A Pop-up restaurant is certainly not a building, especially the ones that sell food outdoors.
    I also think you should reconsider your claim that reviewing everything in town is not routine. This is normally handled as one restaurant per week, every week. If you review all of them, it is indiscriminate, but if it's also as routine as posting a quick summary of last night's city council meeting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Our article Restaurant is not a reliable source and what it says defies common sense and the Compact OED, which says that a restaurant is a "place". That place is usually a building, and to all practical intents it is the building. As for "pop-up restaurants", I am inclined to suggest that, even if they are restaurants in the ordinary sense, which does not automatically follow from the name, the "restaurant" is the place where the food is cooked and eaten, not the group of people cooking the food etc. If the same group are moving around and doing that in multiple places, I would say they are an organisation (singular) that runs (an ugly word, but I can't think of anything better) pop up restaurants (plural). I would not say that group of people was a pop up restaurant (singular). James500 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, in my opinion. A restaurant is not a physical location. It is a business organization led by a chef, which can move to another physical space without losing its identity. A physical restaurant space once occupied by a notable restaurant business loses its notability when vacated and later occupied by a run-of-the-mill food service organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in the discussion of WP:AUD above: Looking at GBooks, I see quite a few dictionaries and other sources which say a restaurant is a "place" or an "eating house" (my emphasis) including Webster, Funk and Wagnell and case law: [6] [7]. James500 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment above by James500 is wrong in every single significant way. I suppose that it is possible that a tiny percentage of restarants as buildings are notable historically, or as architectural icons, as discussed in reliable sources. But the vast majority of notable restaurants are notable precisely as business organizations which deliver food to their customers. In the case of individual, notable restaurants, that is because they are businesses, usually led by chefs, which serve memorable meals to their customers. These businesses achieve notability through reviews by professional food critics, or through winning notable awards, given by Michelin, the James Beard Foundation, and so on. If a notable chef and restaurant departs a physical space, replaced by a run-of-the-mill food service operation, the new venture is not notable, despite its address. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, common sense dictates that the building and the people who occupy are a single topic. I am not at all interested in arguments that they are separate topics for notability purposes, because I see no value in such arguments. If the notability guidelines presently appear say otherwise, let's change those guidelines, because, if that is the case, they are pointless. If a notable chef departs a building, the building argument probably no longer applies because he has used multiple buildings (analogous to a chain of restaurants rather than an individual one). His replacement isn't notable, but the building might be. James500 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts about the future of this guideline

I am not convinced that restrictions contained in this guideline should apply to: government departments, units of local government, quangos etc, funded by taxation; statutory or chartered corporations; companies that are publicly traded, such as on the NYSE; publishers and other organisations that produce creative works; historical organisations, especially if they ceased to exist long ago. In fact, I am inclined to think that some of these might be inherently notable. The scope of this guideline does seem to me to be extremely broad, bearing in mind that the main problem appears to be small businesses looking to increase their profile. I do not approve of a guideline whose object is to delete as many organisations as possible, simply because they are organisations and regardless of their actual character.

Moreover, I have noticed that this guideline is frequently invoked against buildings. Sometimes it is invoked against offices that are held by a single person. I think this is such a serious problem that this guideline will probably have to be deprecated. I don't see how it can be fixed, because it is clear that, no matter what is said, editors seeking deletion will attempt to make distinctions that are so fine as to defy common sense. James500 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine why this guideline would be invoked against buildings, although it is quite commonly invoked against the restaurants and other businesses that occupy buildings.

If you want to see this not apply to anything that you believe is "inherently notable", then your first step must be changing WP:NRVE to say that notability does not require verifiable evidence for whatever it is that you believe is "inherently" notable. The exact line that you need to have changed says, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) NRVE then appears to contradict itself by allowing inherent notability for topics that are likely to have received significant coverage. (2) This guideline, and the other SNG, have apparently equal status with N, and many recognise forms of inherent notability. (3) "Inherently notable", in ordinary language, means that the topic can be found notable on the basis of sources that do not satisfy GNG. It does not imply that the topic can be found notable in the complete absence of independent reliable sources. What is required is a suitable source verifying the characteristic of the topic that makes the topic inherently notable. (4) If NRVE is using "inherently notable" in some technical sense that is not its normal meaning as ordinary English ... that isn't what I am talking about. (5) I can imagine that this guideline might be invoked against buildings because editors don't understand the difference between a building and an organisation or because editors perceive ORG to be more restrictive than GNG or NGEO (something that would create an incentive to push the envelope). (6) A restaurant doesn't occupy a building, it is a building. James500 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@James500: There are plenty of obscure government departments. They aren't inherently notable.

Same for units of local government. The mayor's office of Bucksnort, Tenessee? Not inherently notable.

Plenty of non-notable projects or causes are also funded by taxation, like the road improvements in my town, or the inflation-adjusted raises that administrators in my local tax-funded hospital receive. Not inherently notable.

Historical organizations, like the locksmith museum down the road from me, which you'd likely miss if you walked past it due to it sharing a building with another shop and a restaurant, is also not inherently notable.

Many penny-stock companies are on the NYSE that never get press coverage and will never amount to anything. I know, I've invested in plenty that no longer exist. Not inherently notable, particularly if the only coverage they get consists of spam faxes from pump and dump scams.

What would make all those things notable? Significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. But they are not inherently notable. These are not "distinctions that are so fine as to defy common sense". These are topics that are obviously not inherently notable.

As for buildings, I'm not sure what you mean. I do recall an editor (now blocked) who had a website promoting a course on how to advertise your bed-and-breakfast business on Wikipedia by writing an article about the historical nature of the building, as a cover for putting your external link at the bottom (because your business occupies that building). I'd say such blatant efforts at promotion are fair game for applying this guideline, although one could argue that if the building is truly notable, the article could be kept without reference or linking to the occupying business.

So I agree that the big problem is editors with a conflict of interest looking to promote their business on Wikipedia. To that end, this guideline does a decent job although it could be improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

When I said that I was inclined to regard some of those organisations as inherently notable, I meant the important ones, not necessarily all of them. I thought that would be obvious from the context. The sort of units of local government I had in mind were English county councils. Another example, for which there is already a rough consensus, would be those individual courts that are capable of setting a binding precedent. When I spoke of "historical organisations", I meant organisations that existed a long time ago. I did not mean organisations like (contemporary) museums. The organisations I mentioned might be notable for reasons other than "significant coverage" (an inadequate and unsatisfactory concept we have never been able to adequately define) such as size, wealth, the nature of their legal powers, historical significance (which doesn't always equate with GNG) and so forth (ie indicators of importance). "Distinctions that are so fine as to defy common sense" referred to attempts to apply ORG to buildings. As for "bed and breakfasts", they are, according to the Compact OED, "guest houses" (my emphasis) and cannot be excluded by ORG. Since they will fail both GNG and NGEO anyway, even with reference to the business activities that take place there, they don't need to be excluded by ORG. My concern, in that respect, is with buildings that satisfy GNG, but are close to the borderline. James500 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-commercial organizations

This has been tagged since September but from this diff it seems to be principally the schools sub-section that is disputed. Unless someone can identify a specific part of the main section that needs discussion and resolution it looks as though the tag needs moving down to 'schools'. Just Chilling (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire section has issues and I think it's highly questionable if that section has ever had a consensus behind it, but I won't object to seeing the tag removed and the focus kept on WP:AUD for now. I don't have an objection to the content of the schools sub-section in itself, though I'm not sure why schools need singling out and it's unhelpful to imply that all schools are non-commercial organisations, which they aren't. CT Cooper · talk 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point... some schools are commercial while others are non-commercial, and so they should probably be given their own higher level header (even if we don't change the guidance). Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Some schools are also fraudulent. The people who spend the most time talking about "schools" really mean "government-run schools in wealthy countries, just like the ones I attended", not tiny private school or home-based schools. We should probably re-work that section. Do ballet "schools" count as "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education"? How about the tutoring business down the street? I think their name says "school" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "school" means different things to different people and this guideline should keep that in mind. I think describing certain schools as "fraudulent" is unhelpful as it implies deliberate deception or even criminal activity. As it stands at the moment, this section is pointless as it is simply repeating what is true to all organizations and companies. CT Cooper · talk 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about people having different ideas of what constitutes a school. Also, "fraudulent" is an appropriate word for some purported "schools". Some of those frauds are notable, too.

IMO the main value in having a section on schools is that it has stopped people from saying that schools aren't included in this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, this section was discussed a while back, several times. I haven't been involved in the discussion of schools, and I'd have to think about it before I'd say much; but I have always been of the opinion that we need to relax criteria for certain type of organizations. For example, many Category:International scientific organizations fail this; my case study is the International Sociological Association which fails criteria 2 (it's discussed in passing by few sources, in detail by a self-published study), but every sociologist knows it is a very important organization in the field. Many key Category:Academic organizations fail it in the same way; American Sociological Association would fail it, as would most Category:Sociological organisations. At the same time, I think we can all agree that any national level or beyond professional, academic organization, seen by majority of experts in a given field as core to their profession, is notable. I'd therefore like to propose the following change: 1) add the new criteria: "The organization is recognized as having significant impact and influence on a given field by a significant number of experts." The wording could probably be improved. 2) Change the both to at least two. Otherwise we will keep existing in the situation where, as one of the past discussions concluded, that part of the policy is ignored, as most of us realize that enforcing it would result in deletion of numerous organizations that we feel are nonetheless notable. It's high time we codify this feeling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If "The organization is recognized as having significant impact and influence on a given field by a significant number of experts" is provably met, then criterion #2 is already met. WP:NRVE prohibits us from saying "Well, I'm a widgetarian, and I personally know that the Institute for International Widgets truly has a significant impact on the field of widgets". We have to have evidence of that effect, and if there's evidence, then criterion #2 has been met. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: We seem, however, to harbor hundreds of articles for which criterion #1 is not met, and for which the widgetarian argument is the only defense. I think we should either try to delete them, or adjust the policy. I'll again point to ISA: do you think it should stay or not? As far as I can tell, it is clear it fails our policy as written: something has to give. PS. I was able to find a RS for ASA, so I remove that one from my query. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally have any information about whether ISA meets our guideline, but I don't necessarily agree that having just one out of ten thousand articles be present under the principle of WP:IAR and/or the WP:DEADLINE for deleting or (far more likely) merging articles about non-notable organizations is proof that we need to change the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not one, its hundreds. Here, I chose the APS abbreviation.

• Australian Psychological Society: 8 references to its own website, one to a governmental website that seems off-topic.
• Australasian Proteomics Society: 1 self-ref, 1 ref to another org's website that does not seem to mention it at all, 3 refs to academic journals which I cannot access right now, one seems dedicated to it however, but is it an in-depth article or a news piece - I am not sure.
• Association for Psychological Science: likely passes, it's history seems to have been a subject to two scholarly articles, at least
• American Phytopathological Society: unreferenced
• American Physiological Society: 1 press release, 2 passing mention, 1 broken link, almost entirely unreferened
• American Physical Society: 33 refs, but almost all are self-refs to own website, plus 1 broken link, 2 mention in passing, 1 open letter to republished in a low visibility media source, 1 link to a directory, one link to another org's website.

Granted, I haven't looked for better sources. But as written, we have 1 clear pass, 1 possible pass, and 4 fail. I did a quick search for what seems to be the most prominent among fails, American Physical Society, and I am not seeing anything but passing mentions, despite its likely status as a major academic NGO. Now, would you care to argue those are notable or not? Sources, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• 4.8 million articles divided by "hundreds" of these articles = one out of ten thousand articles.
• Your caveat (that you haven't looked for better sources) is significant. The citations in the article are not what matters. What matters is whether any independent reliable sources have discussed it. I took the completely unreferenced one and found two books that discuss its activity and history with a single search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I also looked at many organizations from the categories related to research institutes and most of them (I easily found at least 30) are not referenced in a way that prooves notability. I think most of them are notable from an academic pov and I do not wish to have them deleted. The problem is that some get deleted and others don't and I am wondering how we could make things more consistent. Should I simply "request the expansion" or "propose the deletion" of those who do not meet the notability criteria? I hesitate to do so and I'd really like an alternative solution. MaudeG3 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@MaudeG3: Tagging them with {{notability}} is the first step, but that category is backlogged for 5+ years. Ditto for any other templates like expansion requested - the odds are long anyone will act on them for years to come (not that it is a reason not to use them). As I said, I think we should list some for deletion, and after a case study of 10-20 of such organizations we will see if the consensus is to keep or delete them. If the former, then we will have a clear evidence that there is consensus to adjust this guideline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability of American college sports clubs vs. varsity teams

There is a pending AfD regarding the LSU Tigers rugby club team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana State University rugby, that has been pending for several weeks, and has had little participation from knowledgeable organizations editors who are familiar with the NORG/GNG standard for the notability of teams, clubs and other organizations. It might be helpful if some of our experienced organization editors and regular participants from this talk page would have a look at this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Common invalid "keep" arguments for commercial organizations

Thinking back over the last two years or so, where I have participated in AfD of dozens of articles of companies of dubious notability, I have identified several arguments that I believe have no basis in this policy, nor GNG. Their prevalence, I think, may justify inclusion them in the policy in the form of "this doesn't matter/arguments to avoid" (or alternatively, adding them to our criteria). I will note that a number of AfDs have been closed as keep as the closing admins seem to consider such arguments valid enough to make them weight for no consensus/keep. The said arguments are:

• this company is one of the largest in its field in a given country/region
• this company employs foo-zens of people
• this company makes foo-illions of profit
• this company is included in the professional/trade ranking of foo-zandred most important companies in its field in the world (ex. The Legal 500)
• this company is a member of a respected professional association (ex. Ius Laboris)

It would be good to hear others thoughts on those arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that they're all invalid arguments.

However, inclusion on a reputable list of "most important companies in its field" item, while unimportant itself, might be a handy proxy for whether proper sources are likely to exist. My thinking is this: a company is not likely to turn up on such a list unless the list-makers heard of it somehow, and the most likely way for them to hear of it (and therefore for the company to be on a reputable list) is for the company to have received some attention in reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, those are good proxies at least, and accepting/keeping "top" ones allows Wikipedia development to proceed reasonably. On that point more fully, in the case of law firms, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#about notability of law firms. and please contribute/continue there, rather than here. This new, duplicative discussion here should be closed, IMHO. --doncram 03:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Another argument I consider invalid is "This company has been profiled in multiple trade publications (that serve a narrow niche audience)." ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple evidence of membership in a trade association with open membership to any company engaged in that business is in no way an indication of notability. The other listed "foo" indicators of notability depend entirely on the depth of coverage and the reliability of the source. An article in a reliable business publication devoting significant coverage to a company which mentions its size compared to its competitors, the number of its employees and its revenues and profits, in the context of detailed discussion of its history and unique characteristics, is a source useful for establishing notability. As for the general blanket objection to coverage in trade publications being used to establish notability, editorial judgment is required. If an article about an aerospace company is based on many articles over decades referenced to Aviation Week and Space Technology, I will not dissent. But if an article about a barber shop is referenced to two press releases in two different barber shop trade magazines, I will dissent. I oppose blanket opposition to citing articles in high quality trade publications. They are not all rags, reprinting press releases. Intelligent editorial judgment is always required here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Don't forget that AfD discussions are the way we develop and evolve consensus.
2. The first four are great proxies, until we are able to get access to print and foreign language sources. They help to counter systemic bias, and have been useful for at least ten years, perhaps longer. So they are valid, but not decisive, keep arguments in the mix of a debate. The fifth amounts to notability by association and, I think, can be reasonably ignored.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that I might buy the "countering systemic bias" argument, except that it's almost never used for orgs in developing countries. It's usually trotted out for articles on mid-sized US and UK organizations. "But they employ 600 sales people" doesn't mean that any newspaper outside their own hometown thought it was interesting enough to write about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think those kind of arguments are inherently invalid (provided the assertions are verifiable). NRVE explicitly allows us to keep articles where the nature of the topic is such that adequate coverage is likely to exist, perhaps offline. I think it is reasonable to assume that size, in terms of the number of people, and amount of money, involved in the business, correlates with the level of coverage. In any event, I am prepared to accept that a sufficiently large, wealthy or otherwise powerful organisation is inherently notable, though I am not sure where the line should be drawn. James500 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So I was involved in re-writing NRVE a few years back to bring out that idea. However, I think you have over-interpreted it. "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" is not the same thing as always being able to keep it based on an assertion that unspecified sources probably exist, perhaps offline. Once you reach an actual challenge, it is almost always necessary to produce actual sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You would think. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advokatfirman Vinge. 4 keeps, all a variation of arguments I listed in the op. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but you are the editor who nominated that article for deletion, using your personal standards, Piotrus. You don't really think that this self-referential AfD is going to convince anyone, do you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
        • What do you mean, my personal standards? Point me to neutral, Wikipedia standards this article is passing, notability-wise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I point you to consensus, which is the operating principle at AfD. If you truly believe that your argument wins the day in that debate, then rely on the closing administrator to agree with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Please note that I have not commented at that AfD debate, and don't intend to do so. I have no context to judge the notability of European law firms. But if several non SPA editors commenting in good faith express the opinion that a top 100 European law firm is notable, why on earth would you spend time fighting against that consensus? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
              • Because if I cannot win, after I clearly made the case that arguments used there are not backed by this guideline, this means we have to seriously consider changing it. As has been said here, consensus can overturn and change policy. Based on my AfD experiences in the past year or two, I see arguments, similar to the ones cited here, often winning the day. This is a sign that we have to reconsider our stance, and officially recognize some, if not all of them, as valid notability criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there has to be a point where the number of people employed by a company makes it notable. I suspect that a company with several thousand employees would be well-sourced anyway, but if it manages not to be, I would still think that a reliably sourced assertion that it has several thousand employees would be sufficient. bd2412 T 18:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That would suggest notability certainly, but I don't see any reason why that would establish notability, especially if there's no good independent sourcing for the claim showing why that particular number is significant. That also creates a potential "what are they counting as employees" question, and more importantly, if it isn't sourced enough to meet other notability criteria, where are we getting those numbers from? The company itself? I don't like the idea of a "number of employees creates notability" because that has zero to do with how noted the company is outside of the company itself, which is what notability is. Having 1000 would suggest notability and that sources could probably be found, but it doesn't create notability unless third-party source note it as significant in some way. - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to say that a company had thousands of employees unless a reliable and independent source was giving it enough coverage to say that much about it. bd2412 T 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. Once notability has been established by the usual means of reliable independent secondary sources, primary sources can be used in limited ways, e.g., to support statements of additional routine facts. If a notable company reports they have 10K employees on their website or in their annual report, I think we'd accept that. Msnicki (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that using a primary source to show the number of employees is fine, but not as a means of establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't the numbers themselves matter? Let's say I can provide a reliable source showing that X company has 50,000 or 100,000 or half a million employees, or that X company is by far the largest employer in a significant industry, at some point doesn't the sheer size of the company demonstrate notability? bd2412 T 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, unless reliable sources exist to demonstrate that such a thing is significant. Such a thing would suggest notability, but having employees is not significant for a company. WP:ORGSIG covers this pretty well already, "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products" and I have to agree with that. - Aoidh (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Attention"?

While we are here, let's discuss the use of the vague term "attention" in AUD. I propose we change that to a linked "significant coverage" to clarify what is meant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the emerging consensus is that the whole section needs to be re-written or removed, with the nature of any changes being the natural next stage of this discussion. Though I agree with the principle that the word "attention" should be substituted for significant coverage. CT Cooper · talk 11:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in AUD for two reasons:

• WP:CORPDEPTH (immediately above) already covers this concept in detail. (Check both the first sentence of the entire guideline and the first sentence of this ==section== for find the exact phrase "significant coverage".) There was no perceived need to duplicate the phrase yet again.
• There was some concern that people would interpret it as a requirement that the significant coverage be in the non-local sources that AUD encourages, but reality at AFD is that a combination of significant coverage in a small-town newspaper plus almost any coverage at all (beyond a trivial namecheck) in a non-local source is usually accepted.

Given this, and the general lack of confusion on the ground, I oppose adding the phrase "significant coverage" for a third time in this guideline, and I specifically oppose shoe-horning it into a subsection that has nothing to do with the depth of coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Replacing one word with two is hardly introducing unnecessary repetition into the guideline. Consistent use of terminology is a good thing; using different words to mean the same thing is not. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of necessary repetition; you can see evidence of that at WP:EL, which repeats "this guideline doesn't apply to reliable sources" half a dozen times now. I am, however, not in favor of unnecessary repetition. Where is your evidence that anyone reads this guideline and concludes that significant coverage is not required? I have not seen any significant confusion on this point for years (i.e., since CORPDEPTH was re-written). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the same word to indicate the same term consistently within a guideline, and I'm really not sure why such a big deal is being made of such a highly trivial change. Regardless, I'm sure people reach all kinds of conclusions given how poorly worded this section is as per my earlier observations. Even if the word is changed, it is akin to moving around deckchairs on the Titanic until more pressing issues are fixed. CT Cooper · talk 18:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with using a less vague term. Attention is what you give a small child. Significant coverage is a defined and globally understood term. Orderinchaos 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The word attention is used four times in the main WP:Notability guideline, including twice in the nutshell. I believe that this is a "globally understood term". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• a minor coverage article published in a non-related topic publication can say more about that topics notability. The point which is being missed in this discussion is how to describe what aspects of a publications audience affect consideration for notability. Changing to significant coverage instead of attention is actually more restrictive and ignores the trivial "fish out of water" coverage publication which would carry weight on deciding notability. Gnangarra 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good example of the problem. The SIGCOV requirement is separate from the type-of-publication requirement. Combining them into one rule means that the guideline would not reflect actual practice, because "minor coverage" in some types of sources is given extra weight at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That's actually why I like the phrase "significant coverage"... To my thinking it is actually a very flexible concept... for one topic, having an in depth article in a specialist source can be considered "significant coverage"... while for a different topic, having a whole bunch of short mentions in multiple non-specialist sources can be considered "significant coverage". In each case, the level of coverage is "significant"... but in different ways Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, this proposal is basically to ban that. They want to take this text:

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.

and make it say

Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, significant coverage 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.

So if you think that "an in-depth article in a specialist source can be considered 'significant coverage'" and good evidence of notability, then you presumably don't want to define "significant coverage solely from...media of limited interest" as being evidence of non-notability. The way it's written now, you need significant coverage from any kind of source, and any kind of attention (e.g., minor coverage) from a source that is unlikely to be indiscriminate (i.e., not a small-town newspaper or especially esoteric specialist source). The proposed re-write would significantly tighten notability requirements, and also cause it to diverge from current practice at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a ban. It accords with what we need significant coverage, so as not to have original research claims of importance on things that are trivially attended to - the vague use of "attention" invites what we do not want. We could go with 'independent direct discussion of' but that is just more words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you don't mean for it to be interpreted as a ban, but a ban on considering minor coverage is exactly how it will be interpreted by deletionists and spam-fighters at AFD. If we write "SIGCOV in national newspapers = notability, but SIGCOV in local newspapers = no notability"—which is, indeed, what we would be writing under this proposal—then people will start using that to say that all orgs must have SIGCOV in a major periodical. Right now, we say that any attention in a major periodical is enough, so long as you can get SIGCOV somewhere else.

If you actually wanted to change the guideline to ignore both minor coverage in major papers completely, then we could do that, but we should be intentional about that change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Is either untrue or hopelessly vague because "evidence of attention" is meaningless or standardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're right (that it's hopelessly vague or meaningless), then it should be easy to find diffs of people (e.g., in AFD discussions) that seem to be confused by this. Have you seen any such comments or disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OK... I think I see what the problem is... it all comes down to what we consider "significant" and what we do not. In terms of notability, I think you need to pass three basic tests to be significant... an examination of depth of coverage, width of coverage, and focus of coverage.

Depth of coverage examines how much space any given source devotes to the topic. Obviously, if a source devotes multiple paragraphs (or more) to discussing an organization, that is more significant in terms of depth of coverage than a passing mention in a source that is really talking about something else.

Width of coverage examines how many people are likely to have seen a source. A small circulation local newspaper is unlikely to have the width of coverage we are looking for. A wide circulation regional or national newspaper does.

Focus of coverage examines who the intended audience of the source is. Is the source intended for experts?... the general public?... a narrow group of investors... the alumni of the school? Focus of coverage is the trickiest to define in terms of "significance"... because the audience has to be significant in relation to the topic. It also depends on the reputation the source has among its intended audience. Is a specialist source aimed at industry experts significant in terms of focus?... that really depends on the reputation of the source among those experts. Some specialist sources can be very significant... others not at all significant. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

yep "significant" is as vague and can mean many things, but primarily when discussing content significant coverage is consider to mean volume. The problem is we need to define the outliners in meaning as being weighted coverage for sources subject and content ie;

• wider audience smaller coverage = significant coverage,
• narrow audience minor coverage = trivial(except in off topic coverage),
• minor audience large coverage = significant coverage Gnangarra 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. All of those are trivial. Especially "minor audience large coverage" is trivial, not worth consideration. If a local fanzine or neighborhood newspaper devotes an entire issue to one subject, that coverage isn't significant in a Wikipedia context. It's significant only in the context of the publication devoting proportionally high space to the subject. Those are two completely different meanings of "significant coverage" — an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience needn't concern itself with any coverage aimed at an insignificant audience, even if that coverage happens to use a lot of words.

I recall a fellow Wikipedian has used a real-life example to illustrate the silliness of using local coverage to evaluate notability: When she was a child, her middle school science fair project was profiled in no less than three school/local newspapers, all verifiable and reliable. In the context of those publications, the coverage was big. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's still trivial.

If one could quantify the terms, the size of the audience multiplied by the amount of coverage provides a gauge for significance. All three of those instances Gnangarra mentions above would be trivial then. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Those are two completely different meanings of "significant coverage" — an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience needn't concern itself with any coverage aimed at an insignificant audience, even if that coverage happens to use a lot of words." So what wouldn't be an "insignificant audience" for a "worldwide encyclopedia"? To re-quote my earlier comment, "Local interests are indeed insignificant when thinking on a global perspective, but so are regional and national interests – of the seven billion people on Earth, only a small minority will have any great interest in what's happening nationally within the United States, let alone what's going on regionally within Kansas. At a global level the involvement of a 100 people, a 1000 people, or a 100,000 people is quibbling with trivia – they are all tiny and insignificant – so given that WP:AUD treats regional sources like sacred cows, using that argument defend WP:AUD is self-defeating. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, but that doesn't mean everything in it has to be of interest to every person on Earth. If Wikipedia judged notability that way then we would have something like a four-digit figure number of articles, not over four-and-a-half million." In any case, I highly doubt a school newspaper could be considered reliable or independent, and even ignoring that, WP:NOT, and it's extension, WP:EVENT, deal with such things effectively. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Amatulić, the problem with interpreting "minor audience" as something like a fanzine (which tend to have large circulation, by the way, or else they go out of business) or a neighborhood newspaper is that you leave out a far more important type of "minor audience", namely the very tiny audiences of serious experts in very narrow fields. A publication whose circulation is just a thousand experts in a narrow technical field could be a very important indicator of notability.

I've argued against this in the past, but I've come to see it from the other side. Note that I'm not going very far with this idea: I say only that it could be, in some instances, an important indicator of notability. In others, editors might well decide that it was proof that nobody except specialists cared about this subject at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Alanscottwalker that attention is unclear. Significant coverage, while perhaps imperfect, is nonetheless clearly better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody has posted here for a month, I think we can change this undefined, unclear word to something better (sig cov). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's move "depth of coverage" (first para) and "audience" sections to WP:GNG

Please see my proposal at WT:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Notability of Publishers

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline. Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. Your input would be appreciated Jbh^Talk 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

NSCHOOL vs. SCHOOLOUTCOMES

This guide, under WP:NSCHOOL, says that

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both.

On the other hand, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that

Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.

This is contradictory. We want article topics to satisfy the notability criteria, but we're not going to delete when they're not met. Shouldn't we update WP:NSCHOOL, then? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that has to be fixed. To my opinion that "rule", often used as a policy, is too often creatively used of plain misused to keep school articles. At one school AfD I heard a statement that, when I recall it correctly, said: "Keep, when you failed to find any sources, you just did not search good enough." It also lead to statements that school articles should be kept "because it is possible that there is a source out there but that has not yet been found". In fact, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes a joke of WP:V. The Banner talk 20:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Extra interesting is that non-USA school always have to provide sources to proof notability.

I wish you were exaggerating, but you're absolutely accurate. A 50-year-old Indian high school with a prestigious list of graduates? Must have lots of sources. Tiny high school open for a decade in Podunk, USA? Of course it's notable. I actually have had editors tell me that if a temporary American school, that existed for two years in the 19th century and whose name is not known (!!!) handed out a single diploma, then it deserves its own article. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the article title is supposed to be: maybe Unknown high school near logging camp somewhere in central California during the 1860s? The content would be "This school existed for about two years, before the logging camp moved. The building was made of wood. It might have had two teachers. Nothing else about it is known." It's infuriating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)