Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

What if they were chosen for coverage just because they are a novelty?

In new page curation work, I've run across a specific case which causes me to raise a general question using it as an example. (there is no discussion or dispute, it is just waiting to get reviewed) The subject is a small retail store which has a very unusual / interesting theme and group that they cater to. I'm assuming that they somehow got the word out to publication editors and many of them thought "that would make a great story" Two references provided were national/international scale news publications which carried articles which wrote true, in-depth coverage of the store, the owner's history, as well as their concept and the clientele that they target. Local references were not given, but I'm assuming that some local newspapers also provided similar coverage. When I google them I find just the listings that any small retail store would get. So, I think that by the rules they are wp:notable due to the coverage, in which case I'll be passing an article on a 20' wide storefront (plus 2 remote kiosks) Or, is there or should there be something to discount coverage that probably occurred only because they are a novelty? North8000 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Under our current rules, I think this qualifies... which is why I have long supported amending the requirement to include sustained coverage (in addition to all the current requirements). Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar. We have previously talked to the community about the value of sustained coverage, and editors are not convinced. Editors want to be able to start an article about something new, right now, without waiting to see whether the coverage will be sustained. At most, I think we might be able to get the community to agree that if the article is about a modern business/organization/product, or a living person, and significant coverage exists for one or two years, but then not for the next five years, then the article could be deleted after those five years. I'm not even sure that we'd manage to convince them of that, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Blueboar: and @WhatamIdoing: In this case the two "big coverages" were 10 years ago. By pure reasoning, my own thoughts would be that thew coverage existed because of the uniqueness of the topic rather than notability of the store and would count less towards wp:GNG. And it's so weak in other areas that it would fail. But right now I think I need to just follow the guidelines and just mark it as reviewed/passed. BTW a "metaframework" idea I have and plan to propose some day would solve a whole lotta wp:notability problems like this.North8000 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A problem I see in this context is that people like to apply NORG to publishers, non-profits and companies that put out cultural work, but then *lots* of us don't want articles on cultural producers deleted after 10 years just because they represented a flash in the pan. In some areas I think there is more of a valid PRESERVE argument in the absence of "sustained" coverage than in others, but gods help anyone trying to get consensus on what should apply to what. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I wonder whether any of the cases you're thinking about could be adequately handled by merging them to larger subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the answer to that question really depends on one's view of encyclopaedicity. If one holds the view that discrete, sourced articles of varying lengths are the best way to treat distinct cultural productions or producers, then merger into larger articles on genres or trends may not seem to be an adequate substitute. To those holding another view, I'm sure the mergers could be attractive. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(EC)If one combined a "to what degree is the topic enclyclopedic?" (did they pass wp:not by a mile or just squeak through?) into the notability equation, it would solve this problem and many others. Also "why were they covered....was it because they are notable?" My kid's peanut league ball team receives lots of coverage in wp:reliable sources not because the team is notable but because in sports coverage itself is an entertainment product. So that would be two strikes against Wikipedia having an article on them. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

But the problem with that line of thinking is that it implies that "notability" is something apart from "what can be reliable and independently documented". Except for some edge cases in the BLP area, there isn't any consensus around such a distinction AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you ever noticed that nowhere is notability defined? The beginning of wp:notability has no "notability is...." it merely says that a topic has to meet one of the notability guidelines. And all of the guidelines (including wp:GNG) just say things like "presumed to be notable if". So where did you get that from?  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I know there isn't a formal definition, but what I gave above is the de facto definition emerging from the GNG and WP:N. The onus would be on those who believe, like Santa Clause, in a definition of notability different from "what can be independently documented", to generate a consensus for such a definition. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the notability definition that is being intuitively strived for in the tangle of GNG/SNG's is a weighted combination of: WP:GNG, degree of enclyclopedicness and some allowance for enduring real world notability. As a result, Acar (bivalve) which would utterly fail your definition and all guidelines has an article (and rightly so) and my kid's peanut league ball team (which easily passes wp:GNG) should never have an article. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree about that the kludges we currently use to include certain species and locations, for example, and to exclude certain living people, are entirely useful, even necessary. If we had a common idea of "encyclopaedicity" on WP we could probably derive from it a definition of notability beyond reliable documentability. My idea of WP:ENC, for example, might give a GNG pass to everything that has ever (verifiably) received print publication (with a rather limited carve-out for no-value-added directories like phone books and for instruction manuals for non-notable products), on the grounds that WP:NOTPAPER is a more important consideration here than maintaining restrictive standards, and that print publication is a standard that will itself become increasingly restrictive (and therefore relevant) over time. But needless to say, others would disagree with this view of encyclopaedicity just as some would with any other, e.g. more restrictive standard. And the idea that the level of current discussion (and hence notability) of a topic should be used to judge, for example, the notability of former publications, organizations or social/cultural movements, strikes me as especially problematic. We are bound to recent, reliable sources as the best view of a subject, but topics do not generally become less encyclopaedic just because RS stop writing about them. Newimpartial (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lots of good thoughts there. And I agree that we should not categorically drop an article because coverage has tapered off. Maybe a part of the answer would be analysis of why the coverage occurred....whether or not it was because of the entity itself. Using former publications as an example, coverage that occurred because of who they are would count more, coverage of them that occurred because a terrorist drove a truck into their office would count less.North8000 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a point on which we agree. Perhaps there is a principle underlying BLP1E from which a wider range of non-notable topics could be defined. :) Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have a "Notability is..." definition: "a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". "Warranting its own article" is then explained as

1. not violating WP:NOT,
2. having enough reliable sources that we could write an article about it, and
3. editors (using their best judgment) want the article.

Newimpartial, I'm going to guess that you aren't familiar with the contents of small-town newspapers. Your standard of "everything that has ever (verifiably) received print publication" would give us articles about every wedding that happened in a small town, and most of the social events. The routine, local activities of the Ladies' aid societies would have been documented in detail in small towns and rural area throughout the 19th century and much of the 20th century, but we don't really want an article on Ladies' Aid meetings at the Blythe's house, or even Ladies' Aid meetings in Ingleside. On a smaller scale, I'm pretty sure that some of my visits to my grandparents "verifiably received print publication" back in the day. It'd still be silly to write an encyclopedia article about me visiting relatives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, I am suggesting that all small town newspapers ever printed should be presumed notable, not that the content of everything they have ever printed should be presumed notable. Some of their content is termed "gossip columns" for a reason. I was referring to the published entities themselves as meeting WP:N, not their content. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

/me wonders exactly who WAID's grandparents are... GMG^talk 18:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm not trying to split hairs or be difficult, my motivation is that I think we'd be better off if forced to define wp:notability. That said, I think that your post was inaccurate in a couple ways. The section that you are quoting does not say "notability is...". It says "merits an article if..." and lists three criteria, with wp:notability being only one of them. And it defines wp:notability as meeting either wp:GNG or an SNG. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but the passage you're referring to was posted by WhatamIdoing, not by me. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(corrected and expanded) WhatamIdoing, I'm not trying to split hairs or be difficult, my motivation is that I think we'd be better off if forced to define wp:notability. That said, I think that your post was inaccurate in a couple ways. The section that you are quoting does not say "notability is...". It says "merits an article if..." and lists three criteria, with wp:notability being only one of them. And it defines wp:notability as meeting either wp:GNG or an SNG. The SNG's give deference to the sourcing concept and and use the qualifier "presumed" but as I've been learning, they are a defacto voiding of the sourcing/ coverage requirement. For example, any athlete who played 1 day at any national league level in any country defacto bypasses the sourcing/coverage requirement. Same for any politician serving a day in any national assembly of any country. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Crosspost: CREATIVE for individual architects OK, but what about an architect firm/company named after two architects?

Currently at AfD there's a discussion about an article where the topic is an architecture firm but where the firm is named after two individual architects over at WP:CREATIVE Talk Page. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

NCORP vs NONPROFIT

For organizations, such as Allied Arts of Seattle, how does one go about applying the notability guidelines? The non-profit guidelines stipulates organization is notable if it meets sourcing criteria and national/international scale activity. When local organizations with only local/regional activity has solid regional/national coverage, but the activity is local only; do we consider it non-notable under WP:NONPROFIT? Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think NONPROFIT is clear that organizations which are local in scope need to have attracted attention outside their area. So in this case if a RS in San Francisco or Boston or wherever else that's not Seattle is taking notice then it meets NONPROFIT. If there's not such coverage it doesn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding circulation column to source analysis table

There are many articles that are based on "significant level" of coverage that consist of local papers, alternative weeklies and other sources that cover things in great depth about things that are a great deal of importance to the local area. Perhaps adding a sixth column for significant reach to general audience. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

significant coverage meaning

Currently, it reads "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I feel this could be open to being exploited to include non-notable subjects that get rather sparse coverage in national general audience newspaper, and a three page coverage in a township gazette type newspaper. Some clarification could be beneficial. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion in progress of interest to those who work within SNGs: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#North8000's_description_of_how_wp:notability_actually_works_right_nowMontanabw^(talk) 17:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple

Among 5 components of primary criteria (significant coverage, multiple, independent, reliable, secondary), I need some clarification on "multiple". 1 is clearly not "multiple". 30 is "multiple". How about 2, 3 ? Can we equate "multiple" == ">1" ? Tttrung (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Regional in the context of WP:AUD

The requirements of NORG calls that at the minimum, at least one of the WP:SIRS satisfying sources must meet "regional, national, or international" breadth of audience. In the discussions I have taken part in my local sphere, The Oregonian (distrubuted throughout the State of Oregon; and it is available in SW Washington as well). What about The Cincinnati Enquirer? What exactly is "region" ? Graywalls (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation would be that a local paper covers the equivalent of a (small) city or county, with a circulation of tens of thousands at most, whereas a regional paper would cover an area on the order of magnitude of a state or province, with a circulation high-tens to hundreds of thousands. Working off of that, I think that The Oregonian is clearly regional. The Cincinnati Enquirer's scope is less obviously regional, but its circulation is quite high, and it appears to have a special edition that includes regional coverage outside of Cincinnati proper. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

NCHURCH

It's not clear to me if WP:NCHURCH is meant to apply just to churches or also to analogous institutions in other faiths. Is it just for churches? And, if so, is there a reason to restrict our attention just to churches? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It applies to analogous institutions in other faiths... synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. A building may be notable while the group meeting IN the building may not be. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @Blueboar. If the guideline is for all such institutions, might I suggest a slight amendment to the guideline, along these lines:

Individual religious organizations, such as congregations and churches, must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. The fact that a church, temple, mosque, or other building managed or operated by a religious institution for the purpose of worship is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places in the U.S. does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. However, it is quite possible for a building to be notable independently from the institution, and then a combined article about the institution and the building is justified.

I would also rename the section and shortcuts to "Religious institutions" or "Religious organizations" to conform. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• The last bit is surely wrong: "However, it is quite possible for a building to be notable independently from the institution, and then a combined article about the institution and the building is justified." It should be: "If either the building or the institution is notable, then a combined article about the institution and the building is justified, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE." No? Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No... there are 4 possible scenarios:

1- if neither the building nor the organization is notable = no article.

2- if a notable organization owns/meets in a non-notable building = article is about the organization (details about the building are not relevant... passing mention at most)

3- if a non-notable organization owns/meets in a notable building = article is about the building (details about the organization are not relevant... passing mention at most).

4- if a notable org meets in notable building = choice... a) combined article that gives details on both ... or b) separate articles on each, that prominently mention (and point to) each other. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• • • Yes, exactly "a combined article about the institution and the building is justified, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE" covers your "passing mentions". In practice articles on eg English parish churches often have a fair amount on the parish, & this is left alone unless it becomes extreme. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Publishers notable due to their work?

I would like to start a discussion on the notability of publishers (including companies that publish books, newspapers and magazines, as well as production companies that create radio and television programs, or films, and perhaps other types I am missing here). The organization/company SNG says companies don't become notable by having notable products. I would like to invite a discussion on how strictly this would apply to publishers, considering that common sense dictates a film studio (for example) is notable based on the films it creates, not random coverage it might have gotten somewhere; it's a bit like WP:PROF, in that the the company becomes notable by its work/output being "cited", so to say. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This makes sense to me.--User:Namiba 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would say “no... BUT”. The “no” part is that Notability is not inherited. While a company may make a notable product, the product does not automatically make the company notable. There are many notable products that are made by non-notable companies. The same goes in the other direction. There are notable companies that make non-notable products.

The “BUT” part is that, when there are quality sources discussing a notable product, there is a greater likelihood that they will ALSO discuss the company in enough depth to establish it’s separate notability. It isn’t guaranteed... just more likely.

In other words... if a company is producing notable products, check the sources that discuss the products to see whether they ALSO discuss the company. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support of course. Judging notability only by random coverage is a bad method of doing it. Notable things and people don't always have enough to write about them, or don't bother trying to get coverage. A company that gets coverage can get an article, while one that makes 100 times more money does not. Film studios could perhaps be judged as bands are, a group of creative professions notable by what they produce. A tech company that invents something that changes the world should be notable for the achievement of its people. Dream Focus 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for companies that are strictly publishers and do nearly no creative work, but would support something for creative teams/companies (which may also be publishers themselves), when their body of works includes multiple readily-notable works (ones we have stand-alone articles on, and not just stubby articles). This idea is basically extending NBIO's WP:NCREATIVE #3 for companies. This would serve more as landing pages to help readers to find other creative works by that company/group. Publishers that are not at all involved in the creative process (discounting editorial oversight) would not qualify here, they are just the passthrough for all purposes. --Masem (t) 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for internal purposes. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include, one of the pieces of information to include is the name of the publisher. Why do we include this, unless we expect the identity of the publisher to have some significance to the reliability of the work? I would think that our citations would be more useful if we provided links to the publishers whose names we are already prompted to provide. BD2412 T 22:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are already way too many exceptions to notability (although most pretend that the subject still needs to meet the GNG as well), carving out yet another one won't help one bit. If there are not sufficient sources about the company, then what does it matter that they published or produced something notable? There are enough examples of books that became notable afterwards but were first published by a local, small publisher before the author rose to fame. Does that make this publisher notable? Not at all. With film and TV producing companies, you get the added complication that often there are a whole series of companies co-producing these, or that a temporary company is made for one or two films or series. Unless they get significant attention as a company (not lots of short mentions in articles about the film or series), they again aren't notable, and shouldn't have an exception to the GNG. Lafig S.A. isn't notable, and no exception is needed. Hallock-Healey Entertainment seems unlikely to be notable. Fram (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  This came out of an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piraya Film. There is enough to write about for the company, but only their notable films get coverage, not them. Dream Focus 10:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remember that “important” is not the same as “notable”. When a company produces notable products, we can (and should) discuss the company in WP... the question is simply where to do so. Do we give the company its own article, or discuss it in the context of articles on its products. When the sources focus on the products, so should we. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, but think of it as extending WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE to organizations...say if a film is nominated for or wins an Oscar or Cannes etc, the award actually is given to the producer, but the media coverage is limited to the film, and possibly director and actors. Then it seems the only way a production company could be notable is for things unrelated to film production, e.g. Weinstein Company expelling founder Harvey. Where's the logic in that? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Rewriting policy based on one AfD which closed as no consensus, and which had the eminently reasonable suggestion to create a "list of works by company" article instead (which is applicable to the most important companies which would fall under this proposal)? Thanks for the link and explanation, but I can only reaffirm my oppose and would suggest that where applicable, creating such lists instead is the way to go (and this is acceptable within current policies and guidelines). For companies which are only noted for one or two productions or publications, nothing should be done. Fram (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but with the same caveats as expressed by Masem above. We have had a number of "creative" companies at AfD including an French architectural firm named after their two founders where there was ample coverage on the buildings they'd worked on but very little on the company itself, record labels with very notable artists, movie production companies, etc. This question is basically the same. Where can a line be drawn between the notability of the product/artist/author/etc and notability of the producer/manager/publisher? Somebody recently also suggested to simply create a "List of" article as a "workaround"/loophole. I think this is a valid approach and I also think that applying NCREATIVE where it can be shown that the company/organization contribute to the "product" is also valid. Otherwise the current guidelines are fine. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NSCHOOL

Hi, made this change here to bring the section into line with the opening paragraph of the page that says that WP:NORG does not apply to not for profit educational establishments. This was also confirmed at the WP:CORPDEPTH RFC, section 5 on the archive page here. However the edit was reverted so seeking opinions here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the "caveat" was intended to result in a future discussion and agreement but (until now) has never occurred. Most editors wanted to draw a distinction between for-profit organizations providing educational products and services and others. Which is why the current wording is so confusing and should probably be worked on to clarify under what circumstances to apply NORG's stricter application of "in-depth significant independent coverage" and when to apply the broader GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Defunct factories

This policy states that it applies to ALL companies. So I suppose it is also true for defunct companies. So for instance if the article would be created for an important factory in my or neigbouring city that was closed decades ago and would clearly pass GNG (significant coverage in independent reliable sources), it would still be deleted for this strickter policy? What is the reasoning behind this discimination of such topics? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a misconception that NCORP *adds* new requirements to GNG. It does not, it merely provides an in-depth explanation of the criteria (which are already in GNG) followed by examples on how to apply them. For example, you say above significant coverage in independent reliable sources but for many editors, they mis-apply the term "independent" to only reflect whether the publisher is organizationally and functionally independent from the topic and not whether the content itself is intellectually independent. This is clarified in NCORP at WP:ORGIND. Additionally, WP:CORPDEPTH provides explanations and examples of what can be regarded as significant coverage and what is regarded as coverage which is run-of-the-mill column inches based on company announcements or PR or normal financial reporting. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not what everyone thinks at Wikipedia talk:Notability. So I am repeating my question. Maybe someone else will have a more appropriate answer. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Companies in Rural Areas

Companies that are located in rural areas may not have the same access to media organizations as companies in cities. Companies that are located in major metropolitan cities also are available in lists of companies for that city. As more and more reliance has been placed on the access to the Internet for remote learning during the pandemic, consideration for how organizations and companies located in rural areas are selected may benefit a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

softwaretestwriter (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC) NmuoMmiri (talk • contribs)

Liverpool City Region regional or local?

Is a publication covering it such as the Liverpool Echo local or regional? SK2242 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Context: we are asking if this source satisfies WP:AUD. Mottezen (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For reference: the Liverpool Echo is included on Wikipedia's list of regional newspaper in England and this list of Regional Daily Newspapers in the UK in a website ran by a team which claim to "have extensive experience in the regional press industry". The Echo also won Regional Press Awards in 2019. Mottezen (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's regional in the context of newspapers; if that is not the definition used, it leaves only three five or six national newspapers for England, all based in London, and the Evening Standard, also a London newspaper. Peter James (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (changed "three" to "five or six", still all based in London. Six if the Morning Star is included. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC))

AUD question

Is specialist coverage and local coverage in the same article good enough for WP:AUD, or is there still a requirement for at least one regional or national SIGCOV source? SK2242 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@SK2242, the only answer you can count on is "it depends on the whims of whoever shows up at any deletion discussion". A "specialist" source that covers a popular subject (e.g., football) is probably going to be accepted, and not considered "specialist" at all.

You might be able to get a more nuanced evaluation of the sources you have if you ask at a relevant WikiProject. Also, in case you need help finding more sources, you qualify for a free WP:Wikipedia Library card, which will get you into JSTOR and other searchable paywalled sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Text and wikilink in the nutshell

The last sentence in the nutshell at the moment is "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is wikilinked to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and notability, a section that does not exist at WP:V. There is a section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability, but that section only contains the text "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable)." with a "further information" link to WP:N.

The sentence in the nutshell is clear and unambiguous and I see no reason to change it, but the wikilink should either be retargeted or removed. Changing the wikilink to point to WP:V would be redundant, since that page is linked from the final word in the previous sentence ("All content must be verifiable.") , and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability doesn't add anything. Are there other possible targets? --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea, it could be pointed to the WP:PROMO section of WP:NOT, which says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources", but the main point behind the link is to stop the editor who tries to get around this by saying that NCORP is "just a guideline" and therefore can be totally ignored. Having a link to any page that says "policy" at the top stops that silly line of argument. (For clarity, I've no particular opinion about whether we need that sentence on this page, or whether it needs to be in that particular location, but the purpose is to say "because policy says so" to the occasional editor who finds the rule inconvenient.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: learned societies

In a previous AfD, it was proposed to expand WP:ORG to formalize a common practice in AfD, of offering some leniency towards academic, scholarly, or learned societies, specially those of national scope. The motivation would be to avoid mass extinction in Category:Learned societies (see also List of learned societies). Would anyone oppose, please? Thank you for your opinion. fgnievinski (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I think any learned society that operates on a national level should be included in the criteria. Often there is little coverage in RS so we would have to make a compromise similar to WP:NACADEMIC using some non-independent sources as well. --hroest 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing this would be some sort of expansion or subtopic of the WP:NONPROFIT section? — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, since WP:NONPROFIT still requires the subject meeting WP:GNG per point 2. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so eventually we would have to add a clause to WP:NONPROFIT that specifies that learned societies still have to be relevant within their field (preventing people from just starting a "learned society") but do not have the same burden of coverage from WP:RS -- since it is unlikely that a society about an academic field will get strong coverage in mass media. Basically what we do in WP:NPROF is to separate notability from WP:RS and an academic can be notable even if there is little coverage about them. So scholarly societies would still have to pass notability (eg needs to be on a national level, somehow recognized by scholars, have some sort of activity such as publishing journals or organizing meetings, eg the Canadian Cartographic Association is notable but not the Calgary Cartographic Association). Also we need to weed out "predatory" associations that publish predatory journals or organize predatory meetings. --hroest 04:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you plan to write a (non-trivial/sub-stub) article about a learned society, that fully complies with NPOV (which absolutely cannot be done without Wikipedia:Independent sources) and NOT (which explicitly requires independent sources, if the subject doesn't have WP:RS? The solution at NPROF is to say that we don't need no stinkin' neutrality in articles about academics, because it's perfectly fine to just say whatever their employers' publicity department puts on their website, and I find it profoundly disatisfactory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

These are good points, however I feel we can use analogous solutions as we can use with academics. Same as with academics, we have to rely on what we can presume is academic honesty and reputation, in general academics and learned societies are not there to tout there own horn and have advancement of learning, truth and knowledge as their main goal. Unlike other organizations, they live from their reputation and generally do not depend on outside donors or customers, so they have no need to over-emphasize their standing. Similar to what we do in WP:NPROF, only indisputable facts would be allowed to be drawn from non-independent sources. As soon as any doubt about a fact is raised or is disputed, then non-independent sources will not suffice any more. These facts or just relate to dates, times, conferences held, awards given out etc -- really nothing that is likely controversial. In 99% percent of the cases there will be no problems and for the 1% where questions arise we will rely on RS, it seems to work well for academics, so why not for learned societies? --hroest 03:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Honesty is not the same as neutrality. Living from your reputation incentivizes you to polish that reputation. Living in a system that rewards fame – because, make no mistake, fame does bring in the big bucks, at least within the American academic system – incentivizes you to be just as careful about self-promotion as any business might. Are you lucky enough that your university system doesn't use the Publish or perish model? And doesn't punish professors for not getting grants? At a significant number of US schools, you either bring in grants to pay your salary for at least three months a year, or you don't get paid for those three months. In the University of California system, the last promotion for a professor requires that you demonstrate worldwide fame ("international distinction", I believe is the exact term for it). There's a pay rise associated with that. Why do you think that wouldn't encourage an ambitious professor to hire a publicist?

(NPROF does not allow only indisputable facts. See NACADEMIC #4, "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education", which is a decision apparently to be made only in the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. I tried, years ago, to say that you needed one independent source to agree with the Wikipedia editor about this, but that was considered far too troublesome and completely unnecessary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

NPROF-type criteria for NCORP

I sometimes see material corporations validly deleted at AfD because they did not have a proper in-depth article on them (which would give GNG). However, corporations are mostly boring and I am not sure that pure-GNG criteria is working for corporations. I have had to defend corporations that were listed, and/or had thousands of employees; such corporations are obviously notable (more so than a minor BLP who happened to have two interviews in a mid-level RS and survived AfD).

I propose that we introduce WP:NPROF-type objective criteria that would identify material corporations, who should, regardless of GNG, be considered notable. NOTE that I would also keep the existing NCORP criteria for those who can't meet the metrics (i.e. if you are not big, then you must meet general NCORP), thus giving a range of targeted criteria like NPROP. At the moment, there is skepticism about NCORP, because it is implying that material corporates should be deleted - we could therefore use more targeted criteria (like NPROF).

Examples being having any one of:

• A listed company whose market capitalization ever met or exceeded $1bn.
• Companies that ever had direct full-time employees of over 1,000.
• Companies whose annual revenue ever met or exceeded $1bn.

These are still high bars but would solve many issues around short-comings with only using NCORP notability as sole criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, that's not going to work. Just because a company is "big" doesn't mean they are necessarily notable. There's lots of capital venture firms in Fortune 500's list , for example, that is impossible to find any detailed sourcing for. NCORP was specifically designed around sourcing to avoid potential COI issues since WP is not a means of promotion. --Masem (t) 13:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think any company on the Fortune 500 list is definitely notable. Any listed VC with a $1bn market cap is also definitively notable. However, if a VC firm has $1bn of investments but, is not itself valued at $1bn, or has 1,000 VC employees etc. then they would not be notable (i.e. we would specifically separate their individual metrics from their portfolio companies). E.g. Silver Lake (investment firm), one of the world's leading VCs, would fail on the objective criteria (no listed value, not have 1,000 employees, has little revenues), but would meet GNG. So it is quite a high bar (obviously, we might need to refine to specific industries)? Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Britishfinance, this is the approach taken by German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Wirtschaftsunternehmen. They don't use coverage to determine notability, rather they use metrics like employees, turnover, and finances. It means in practice they delete articles on companies that have significant coverage in the press on technicalities, e.g. see the deletion of their version of First-e Group (which I created in English) at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/14. März 2019#First-e_(gelöscht). Be careful what you wish for. The advantage of using coverage in reliable sources as our bar for entry is that it forces everyone to focus on the sources, hence giving us material to write articles with. Companies get lots of press coverage, so they don't need special pleading. Fences&Windows 14:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Like with NPROF, I would advocate a more nuanced approach that would combine objective metrics, and if they fail, GNG references (per NPROF, where they are several layers). Our current NPROF, is knocking out major corporations that are obviously notable. Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability on en.wiki is not what you think it means. We are looking for coverage from secondary sources, to show it has been noted by others. Not just because it seems important. --Masem (t) 14:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

But we don't apply that to NPROF because we know that secondary sources are only one route of understanding notability, but not a universal test of notability? This is where NCORP is letting us down and producing odd results. replyBritishfinance (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Our mission is furthered by having academics on Wikipedia. Our mission is already placed at risk by the legions of companies who would like to use our reputation for their profit rather than our reader's benefit. There is a reason we've made notability harder for companies and I would not be in favor of adjusting that balance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Having served my time addressing WP:UPE and WP:PROMO on Wikipedia, I can understand that (there is a lot of it). My issue is that the pendulum has swung so far now, that corporations that would objectively be considered notable and known to millions of people (because they have thousands of employees and branches), are getting deleted via NCORP. The bar I am proposing (which is only a proposal for discussion), is pretty high, so I don't think it would allow any low-grade situations through? Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What complete nonsense User:Barkeep49! Our mission is furthered by having notable academics on Wikipedia, and notable companies too. At the moment WP:PROF, as interpreted in practice, is probably very often too lax, while some companies are badly treated, especially large privately-owned ones, whose PR expenditure is aimed at stopping media coverage, not generating it. At the same time our articles on both academics and companies are often among our poorest. I would support a guideline of some sort. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

At the same time our articles on both academics and companies are often among our poorest. I agree with that. So the answer, for me, isn't to allow more articles to be created about companies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fewer and better should be our aim in both areas, and indeed most other ones! WP:COI is a particular problem for companies, especially small ones, but "organic" article creation by independent editors falls down badly here. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And this idea of "organic" article creation would be thrown out the window if we went by corporate metrics like company size by revenue or employees. One simply would load up a list like Fortune's, then, and find each company above that threshold but not already with an article, and make an article, which is the exact opposite of "organic". (Years ago, someone used the NSPORT criteria to do this for 10,000s of athletes via a semi-automated process, and its a problem we're still dealing with). There's a reason we stress that notability guidelines are not inclusion guidelines, because no entity should be automatically included; there has to be good reason. --Masem (t) 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that is any less "organic". Vast amounts of our new articles are done to meet some goal of complete coverage. I think you'll find it was dozens of "someone"s on the sport, maybe hundreds. The trick is to get any SNG at the right level in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone is going down a list that includes every X of a certain class (whether Fortune 500 companies or athletes in a sport), and doing the work to make sure the topic meets the GNG or appropriate SNG before making the article, so that the fresh article they will create will be notable to start, that's not necessarily just "inclusion because X is of this class". That human factor of evaluating sources is that organic aspect here. --Masem (t) 05:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If people feel very concerned over this area due to UPE etc (per Barkeep49 above), we could increase these metrics to a very very high bar of $5 billion listed valuation, or 5 thousand direct employees, or $5 billion annual revenues. I just think the principle of objective metrics makes sense for NCORP, would solve shortcomings with NCORPs reliance on GNG, and the metrics could be further debated and amended over time. Britishfinance (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In many AFD I've participated in about businesses, most agreed that if they make a billion dollars or more, they are notable. Dream Focus 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that feeling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City; hence why we should put some formal metrics on it - at least at a level that everybody will feel comfortable with. The tool (and combined with the GNG fall-back, like NPROF), should be useful? Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is an absolutely horrendous idea. The reason why NPROF exists (and I take some issue with it anyway) is because it's not likely to generate the type of in depth coverage we need to see because academia is not usually of general interest to the sources we look to. There is nothing wrong with the way NCORP is structured, aside from the fact that it's too permissive. This changes WP:N entirely and isn't just about NCORP. What's next, the number of YT or FB likes? (Which for the record, can be bought by the thousands.) CUPIDICAE💕 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  That is a bit harsh Praxidicae. It is used in German Wikipedia (per above). I have had to defend corporates with over $3 billion in revenues, fully listed stocks that had $2 billion market capitalization, and corporations with thousands of full-time employees (and branches) (just can't find a link to those ones). I have probably !voted delete on as many corporates as any ongoing AfD participant, but I do think we need some basic objective metrics that capture the big ones, which I think the current NCORP doesn't do. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't harsh and much of dewiki's policies regarding notability is an unmitigated disaster. NCORP is too permissible as it is. CUPIDICAE💕 14:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Come on, that is extreme. For example, this is DGG at an AfD informing us in realtion to de-WP that .. unlike some WPs they have in general higher standards for all biographies than we do, but that they have a better understanding of what makes a notable career in most fields..? Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And I disagree. Still. Badgering me will not change my mind and I will vehemently oppose any attempt to loosen WP:NCORP for a thousand different reasons that I will detail if there is ever a formal RFC. CUPIDICAE💕 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• NCORP is probably the one subject specific notability guideline that insists on passing GNG above all else. I approve of that. Other criteria might be listed under “things that will indicate that it is likely that in-depth coverage exists”... but they are not a substitute for that in-depth coverage. (That said... As always, WP:BEFORE applies... do a solid search before you nominate for deletion). Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is not how it is being applied. In actual deletion discussions, a regularly expressed sentiment is "This is a corporation, so GNG doesn't count." So clearly it has, in practice, departed from "insists on passing GNG above all else." Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  (Clarification: People are saying this as an argument for deletion, i.e., "it passes GNG but that doesn't matter.") Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd be satisfied with people actually adhering to the damn guidelines in the first place. In practice, the goalposts for significant coverage have been moved to an absurd extent, past what is written in policy, and seemingly continue to be moved. Multiple times now I have been stonewalled with one-sentence "just trivial coverage" comments about corporations that are the subject of extensive, ongoing news coverage from professional, veteran journalists working for independent and reliable publications of an in-depth and non-promotional nature, which more than meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Then, when those sources are presented, the response is "still trivial coverage," oftentimes mischaracterizing what the story is even about (recent example: a ~800-word article detailing a company's recent layoffs, turmoil at the board level, and history leading up to that point dismissed as a "routine fundraising article" -- which would certainly be a novel approach to fundraising.)

There also seems to be a persistent mistrust in journalists and the editorial process such that virtually any news article is seen as "promotional," no matter how reputable the source or objective or even negative the content, and such that every piece of journalism, no matter how in-depth, how much analysis or additional reporting it contains, or how reputable the journalist, is dismissed by default as "based on a press release" because a press release exists (hint: a press release always exists). It is beginning to reach "fake news" accusation levels. You can sort of see it above: "the legions of companies who would like to use our reputation for their profit rather than our reader's benefit." That's their problem, not ours. If there is significant coverage of a corporation that passes GNG, then I don't see why we decide that doesn't count just because if we keep the article a stock price might go up somewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the benefit of using some (but not all, per above) of the German Wikipedia approach of objective criteria/metrics to protect the more substantive corporations from such debates. Wikipedia is a harsh environment now for corporates, largely because of the misuse by spammers, however, we hotly debate deletions of listed corporations, of corporations with over 1,000 branches (and thus 10,000 employees), or corporations with billions in revenues. Britishfinance (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• if such adjustments were to be made it just translates to exponential growth in undisclosed paid editing especially in Nigeria thus I oppose any adjustments whatsoever. Adjusting NCORP to fit NPROF(where meeting any of the criterion is sufficient enough to prove notability) would be a colossal disaster. Take for example one of the “examples” you put forward where you implied an organization may be considered notable if they have more than a “1000” / “5000” employees the problem is even if the bar was set at “10,000” what’s to stop the organization from falsifying the figures? How do we actually confirm that the organizations does indeed have the number of employees they claim to have? Do we confirm this per “RS”? which btw could easily be influenced, Or based on what the organizations claim on their websites? or there any agencies in the U.S.? that probe the veracity of such claims(I don’t know) but what I do know for sure is that there isn’t any of such agency in Nigeria that carries out such function thus making Wikipedia a free for all entry for Nigerian organizations, who are ready to pay any amount to any so-called Nigerian reliable source to falsely ascribe any achievements to them. Tbh, this isn’t a great idea. In fact NCORP as it is needs to be “toughened up” & not “loosened up”. Celestina007 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• It should not as the metrics should be so large (i.e. $3 billion), that it only applies to material companies. If a Nigerian company has a $3 billion market cap, it is notable. We apply the same sourcing requirements (i.e. quality verifiable sources, not blogs etc.) as per NPROF (i.e. we don't have issues with Nigerian academics and NPROF). I am fully aware of places that generate a lot of SPAM (and even HOAX) CORPS, but it is easy to write the rules that these major metrics must be from a reliable source, or else, we can't use them. I am not trying to write rules for SPAM firms (or any country), I am trying to ensure that large corporate organisations don't get deleted per my examples above of a $3bn US health insurer and a $2bn Japanese listed company. Britishfinance (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Let’ explore some specifics... Could someone give us (say) 3 examples of companies that would not pass our current NCORP guidance, and would pass the suggested revised guidance? Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily convinced either way on this metric, but I do want to note that if a company has a $3 billion market cap, they are well past the point where merely having a Wikipedia article would "provide a boost." By this logic, you could argue that we should not have an article on any corporation whatsoever, just in case it might help them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• (ec) Blueboar, per above, I have two AfDs of a corporate with over $3 billion in revenues, and a fully listed stock that had $2 billion market capitalization. Both would fail a strict application of NCORP, but at the AfD, a COMMONSENSE view prevailed that they were big. That is the problem here - we are deleting big companies because journalists don't always do SIGCOV articles on corporates (like they don't to on NPROFs). This is not either/or - we need metrics with very high bars (like the targeted criteria in NPROF), but ALSO, the existing general NCORP for the ones who can't meet those metrics. At the moment, people at AfD can see that NCORP doesn't really work because large corporates would fail it. We should think about turning NCORP into NPROF with multiple targeted criteria that would specifically save large material corporates (via metrics), and then the tougher application on the ones who fail this (the "substantial in-depth" coverage). I think a lot of objectors above think using metrics would open the floodgates for small corporates, but I am suggesting the opposite. We use metrics to avoid silly situations where large corporates are failing NCORP, but then apply NCORP to the smaller ones (i.e. "if you are not objectively big (via metrics), then you had better be very NCORP notable"). Britishfinance (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh... no matter what standards we set, there will be borderline cases... but, I would have said both of those examples met the current NCORP standards. There is sufficient coverage, even if not (yet) cited on the article. So, sorry, I still don’t see a need to change the standards based on those two examples. I would need examples where NCORP clearly isn’t met. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody produced a single NCORP-level reference in either AfD (which nobody really denied at the AfD); if they were solely judged on NCORP, they would both have been deleted. Because NCORP is too blunt, it is getting ignored at AfD for larger corporations, and thus undermines NCORP, with !voters reverting to other measures. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is some editors' interpretation of what "NCORP-level reference" means. I have seen editors claim strange things, along the lines of "Well, 500 words [which is long for newspaper articles] might count as SIGCOV, but then you have to exclude all the content that is quotations, all the information that probably came from the company, all the content that refers to revenue, all the content that is favorable about the company ('cause that's "promotional"), and that leaves us with only 200 words, which I don't personally feel is "significant" any longer, so that source doesn't count at all, and we can just pretend that that reliable source doesn't even exist for the purposes of determining notability." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• NPROF is a rare exception to GNG because of three related things: (1) many Wikipedians see coverage of academics as important to our mission (as Barkeep said); (2) it's grandfathered in. The "professor test" existed before we had any sort of broad notability guideline; and (3) academics aren't typically recognized in profiles and biographies in independent secondary sources, but through roles, citations, awards, and discussion of their work.
  Applying these to companies: #1 there is no such motivation to create special exceptions for companies, being for-profit rather than for-knowledge entities. #2 it wasn't grandfathered in, so moot. #3 they are frequently covered for their own sake (granted, some industries more than others) and have vastly more resources they can dedicate to producing or influencing traditional coverage such that they shouldn't need a special boost from us. While universities have PR/marketing departments, too, most academics don't get much, if any benefit from them. The efforts are often smaller and often limit promotion to certain kinds of activities that bring in money (try to get a philosophy publication promoted at a school that focuses on sports or engineering, for example). This even puts aside the promotional concerns raised by several above.
  Ultimately, I've always had mixed feelings about the GNG exceptions like NPROF. I agree with the general consensus that we should try to include academics here, but also feel uneasy with how that relates to our policies and guidelines on prioritizing secondary and independent sourcing. I have a really hard time seeing any subject that wasn't given an exception 10+ years ago receiving one now or any time in the near future. The trend is going in the other direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Rhododendrites on the three related reasons. NPROF is the exception. It is not a rare exception, but is the sole exception. Apart from (1) (2) and (3), there is another more fundamental reason for the exception. NPROF articles are not about the Professor/Researcher, but are about the Prof’s research results. The content is thoroughly academic and encylopedic. Generally, the article has minimal biographical background, like childhood and ancestry and siblings, and generally is completely disinterested in the professors’ recreational lives. Note that these assumption here is that the topic is really research results, and this does not apply to professors at non-researching institutions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    ...and what we write about the prof's research results is almost always based on a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the prof's own research papers, which are primary and non-independent sources for that content, with the attendant risk of original research to boot. Which is another way of saying that if the actual subject is "Research by Alice Expert", the subject still fails GNG for (usually) not having independent secondary sources about it.

    Also, those disinterested profs might not have PR departments the way the CEO of a large company might, but they do have access to social media, and the academic research (e.g., PMID 32251463, PMID 32109148, PMID 28719136, PMID 33179209) indicates both that they use it to promote themselves and their research, and also that it is effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    Or: If academics don't engage in self-promotion on the English Wikipedia, then why does this PetScan query on edits requested by people with COIs at articles about academics not return zero results? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    Academics engage in self promotion sure, but it’s different to how companies promote their products. There is a boundary where academics get commercial. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is the wrong idea. However, something related to this that might be useful is to make a list of situations that are almost always notable. Imagine re-writing this idea as a list of "If you think it's non-notable, but [annual corporate revenue exceeded US$1,000,000,000; it's currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange; it's a national government agency; it's a Michelin three-star restaurant; it's a tertiary hospital, it's a bona fide, non-diploma-mill university...] – you're probably wrong." There is no "inherent" notability. Merely having a thousand employees or revenue of a certain amount doesn't make it possible to write a decent encyclopedia article. The requirement for absolutely every article to be WP:Based upon independent and secondary sources still applies. But frankly, we've never actually seen any organization in my list that didn't easily exceed the standards set forth here, and we do see the occasional editor try to claim that a thousand-bed government-run hospital isn't notable because he didn't think that the currently cited newspaper articles were quite long enough to "count", or because they're in the 'wrong' language, or because "all" the sources say is what a big effect the organization has on the economy, or whatever else people misunderstand about the more recent additions to this guideline. We could use this opportunity to reduce these misunderstandings by giving lots of examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• NCORP exists for good reason. Quality over quantity is needed when it comes to article creation. It’s already ridiculous we have articles on football players who were subbed on for 5 minutes in a English 4th tier match then disappeared to non league forever because they technically meet NFOOTY. SK2242 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Negative events (scandals) are more likely to produce significant coverage in neutral sources, hence, biasing Wikipedia towards negative coverage in general. “X makes a better widget than Y” is just less likely to generate qualifying coverage than say, for example, “CEO of X fired for sexual harassment” or “3 people killed when widgets made by X malfunctioned.” This is an issue not so much in itself but rather because one might use Wikipedia to verify that a company (or, more likely, its website) is “legitimate” (i.e., is it safe to download software from X? Well, it has no Wikipedia article, so I think we will download software from Y instead.) 173.73.200.9 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. NPROF is not comparable to NCORP except for the purpose of diametrically opposing differences. In particular, currently active corporations are unworkable with NPROF type criteria because NPROF type criteria is easily manipulated by a profit orientated corporation willing to spend money for publicity. There may be some sense in such criteria for strictly historical, closed, companies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, do you really think it'd be easy to "manipulate" a non-notable company into having a billion dollars in annual revenue? If so, please remember me when you start a business, okay? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Companies faking revenue and expenses, absolutely easy and normal. Billions? Billions is getting large. Are there billion dollar companies at the notability boundary? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The usual goal of people who propose this (as they have done for a least a decade now) seems to be having some level of objectivity, so that some articles won't end up deleted because I WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT, and that means WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT and should be sent through one of the deletion channels. As an example, last year, I encountered an AFD on a thousand-bed hospital. Now, tell me: can you honestly imagine a thousand-bed hospital being built, during this century, in any place you've lived in, and nobody ever writing a newspaper article about it? Can you imagine a hospital qualifying for inclusion in List of largest hospital campuses and the world never taking notice of it? I can't. So if we made a list of "obvious" cases of notability, then we might waste less of our time. The down side, of course, is that if we put out a list of "obvious" cases, then someone will fill AFD with companies whose revenue was "only" $999M, because "the guideline says it has to be $1B". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Examples of statewide and regional newspapers

I think that we could make WP:AUD clearer. It seems that "statewide" and "regional" are …maybe sometimes interpreted to get the answer I want, rather than the correct answer.

I wrote AUD years ago; I know what we intended it to communicate. However, all these years later, I still have to tell people that the largest daily newspaper in any US state is not a "local" newspaper. That's why we put the word statewide in that section.

So I'd like to know what you think about adding a sentence that says something like:

"For example, the largest daily newspaper in any state in the United States is always considered a statewide newspaper rather than a local source, and the largest daily newspaper in any Canadian province is always considered a provincial newspaper rather than a local one, even when these sources write about subjects in the same city as the newspapers' office. Regional newspapers usually cover multiple cities or a large metropolitan area; there are many regional newspapers in the UK. Some places have multiple non-local news sources."

What do you think? Is that a fair description? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The UK newspapers list has "regional" and "local" sections but it's unclear how this is defined, and some are in both sections. Looking at circulation it seems that most (possibly all) of these are defined as regional and there isn't really a distinction. Circulation figures are affected by the number of people using the website instead of buying a newspaper, so if a newspaper distributed within one town doesn't publish much online it may appear to have more readers than a regional newspaper that publishes everything on its website. Peter James (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For paper publications, circulation is basically the size of the print run, minus anything that gets discarded. Readership is higher, because one assumes that if the paper is delivered to a home, then multiple residents might read it, or if it's delivered to a business, it might be put into the waiting room and read by anyone who stops by the business. Online, a reader is an individual human. In fact, "a reader" might represent less than one human, since the same person might use multiple devices (phone, home laptop, work computer, etc.).

I thought that the UK article could use some work, but even though the individual entries might need verification, I was thinking that it might be helpful. If you don't, we could always leave out that sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Just checking again on this: There are no objections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's fair enough but ... (1) newspapers are becoming a thing of the past, town and regional newspapers disappearing first, and going through a transition where regional newspapers are just an office of a major newspaper.; (2) for small newspapers, I think it is important to look at the connection between the story writer and the subject, mainly, how familiar is the writer with the subject. There is a problem when the writer is extremely familiar, and the story lacks a distant perspective. The sort of example I am thinking about is reporting on a local sporting match, or on the reopening after renovation of one of the shops. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: Does GNG take primacy over NCORP

Recent changes to WP:N, specifically WP:SNG, produced changes to highlight that SNGs are not subsidiary to the GNG and may either add or remove certain criteria - depending on the SNG. There's a discussion with a number of editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JTA Supermarkets (2nd nomination) where a number of seasoned and experienced editors are insisting that "references meet GNG" and rejecting NCORP as the primary guideline while insisting the NCORP SNG is "subsidiary" to the GNG. (pinging Guettarda and Jayron32) HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have always just thought of NCORP as being the strictest interpretation of GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't supersede the GNG. It clarifies what sorts of sources qualify meet the standards of the GNG. Clarification is not superseding. SNGs don't act as ways to violate the GNG, they merely act as ways to understand what counts as significant coverage and what counts as reliable sources. You'll note that, in the AFD in question, 1) you're the only person arguing your point and 2) you've taken up 50% of the text of the discussion making your argument. You don't actually become correct merely because you're more willing to badger other people than they are to respond to your unnecessary badgering. --Jayron32 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a change. So when you said at that AfD "WP:GNG is the only relevant page; subjects that pass GNG don't need to pass additional hurdles to be acceptable as articles", you've now changed your mind? To my mind, the only "badgering" at that AfD are those editors who are trying to prevent discussion where a Keep !vote is based on an interpretation that GNG supersedes all other SNGs. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not hard to conceive of a situation where a company doesn't pass NCORP but gets through GNG - I'm sure some of these would be plausible examples. They're two routes to show notability. Passing one and not the other is still a pass. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines don't explicitly resolve the question. IMHO WP:How Wikipedia notability works describes/sorts out the status quo. Clearly the sourcing GNG is always a "way in". A case could be made that NCORP, besides being a typical SNG also calibrates the sourcing-GNG. But, even if that were true, IMO the AFD discussions show that your interpretation is stricter / more literal than the community norm, and IMO the latter is not how Wikipedia works. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The test which appears at WP:N and says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets GNG *or* meets an SNG may be correct for 90% of SNGs which generally have more relaxed requirements than the GNG but (and as discussed at length during the RfC) it is not applicable to all SNGs and is specifically not applicable to NCORP. The updates to WP:SNG should be taken to be a more up-to-date reflection of community interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

HighKing has been at my talk page after I closed an AfD (maybe two or three) in a way that didn't match with their interpretation of NCORP so I get what you're saying. However, I think the community has been clear that it intends it to be harder for companies to gain notability than for topics at large. So to this extent I think Cabayi has it wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the intent is to make it harder; the issue however is whether or not any one specific article meets the standards of NCORP. Highking is diverting attention away from the argument made by people voting keep in the current AFD by refusing to engage with the fact that people are voting keep based on their understanding of those higher standards, which is to say they have assessed the sources and still believe that the sources in question meet the specifics of NCORP. His argument that NCORP sets specific standards that clarify the GNG is at once both true and irrelevant if people are assessing the sources against those standards; the biggest source of frustration is Highking's insistence that the GNG is in conflict with NCORP, or that NCORP somehow removes the GNG from a valid consideration in the discussion; far from it. NCORP is a clarification of language that, in the GNG, is somewhat vague. It does not supersede it, it clarifies it, and when citing the GNG in a deletion discussion, you don't invalidate someone's argument because NCORP exists also; NCORP supports the GNG by providing clarification. --Jayron32 15:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact - I agree with what you've said above and I've described the relationship between GNG and NCORP similarly many times. NCORP doesn't add a single thing to GNG but any dispute over interpretation between GNG/NCORP should always be resolved with reference to NCORP. For that reason I've said that GNG is irrelevant (in the context of NCORP-related AfDs) - and it is. For example, GNG says "Independent of the subject" and 99% of the time (at least), editors simply interpret this to mean that there should be no corporate links between the topic company and the publisher. So when an article is published in, say, the NYT, which is based entirely on an interview with a company founder/executive, some ill-informed editors will say "significant coverage in reliable reputable *independent* source, meets GNG". I've yet to see any editor arguing that this is an incorrect interpretation of GNG and if the truth be told, when that argument was made, editors disagreed with it. The "community consensus" is to interpret "Independent" as it appears in GNG in the way I've described above. That isn't to say that this is the correct interpretation of the GNG. It isn't. But NCORP, on the other hand, very clearly expands on what is meant by "Independent" and specifically disallows this reference for the purpose of establishing notability. So a dispute over whether a reference meets the criteria for establishing notability should always be resolved by referencing NCORP interpretation. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that that is a proper decision. My post (and linked essay) were to reconcile that with certain structural things in the guidelines. For example, the meta-guidline at the beginning of the WP:notability page says that meeting the sourcing-GNG on that page is a way in. Taken literally, one "side" could argue that the sourcing-GNG as written in the notability page exactty as written is a way in.....i.e. one can ignore the tougher source criteria in NCORP. The other "side" could argue that the "GNG as a way in" argument is faulty because the NCorp standards are intended to be tougher than GNG and complied with and so it's intended that NCORP voids out the "easier" GNG way in. The reconciliation that NCORP, besides being an SNG like the others, also calibrates GNG for that specific category reconciles all of that and thus takes both of those arguments off of the table. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@North8000 I'm sorry I'm not following. What is taking both these arguments off the table? I ask because I have very much seen those arguments playing out at current AfDs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Well, as a preface, my WP:How Wikipedia notability works essay purports to say that it describes how the wp:notability ecosystem works at the big fuzzy macro level which handles some pseudo-flaws which exist at the micro level. And my post that you are responding to describes an apparent self-conflict which exists at the micro level which is that some elements of wp:notability page if taken by themselves and literally, conflict with each other. Now, regarding how it takes the two arguments off of the table: Regarding the first argument, what the wp:ecosystem does (according to the essay, and this was bolstered by the recently decided SNG material in the WP:notability page) is say that the NCORP tweaks the GNG "way in" and so the the GNG-way-in absent that tweaking does not exist. Regarding taking the second argument off of the table, to start with there is no literal basis for that argument. But the probable basis is "it's intended that NCORP toughens GNG so therefore it voids the GNG way in" and my "calibration" explanation voids that probable basis by in essence saying "nope, the toughening is by calibrating the sourcing requirement of the GNG way in, not by voiding the GNG way in". BTW, the essay is intended as a way to explain the status quo of the fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem., which in turn might lead to more cleanly defining the status quo in the guidelines. If others feel that it is useful, I would appreciate support for linking it in the discussion at the WP:notability talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing, the traditional answer is that subjects must meet a notability guideline, but that it's up to editors at AFD to decide which guideline they believe is the most relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CORP interprets the GNG more strictly. It gives the GNG more emphasis, but it is self contained at WP:CORP. The issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JTA Supermarkets (2nd nomination) appears to be the notability tests referring to sources that exist, as opposed to sources in the current state of the article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  CORP departs from GNG in demanding that no reliable source be considered as contributing to notability unless that source contains significant coverage plus it is independent of the subject matter plus it is a secondary source. Multiple prior discussions about the GNG indicate that editors do not agree that the GNG requires that only lengthy secondary sources may be considered, and all else must be ignored. To give a made-up example, if the available Wikipedia:Independent sources for a subject include:

  • one entire book about the subject, and
  • 100 magazine articles that each contain one paragraph about the subject

  then GNG says the subject is notable (101 independent secondary sources, which add up to very significant coverage), and CORP says it is not (only one source that is, when the source is considered strictly in isolation, an independent secondary source that contains significant coverage). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • • WhatamIdoing, I’m confused. My reading of the GNG is that it says exactly the same thing. Multiple (2) sources must be all of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage. And for virtually all purposes, coverage means secondary source coverage. However, it is the independent part that is the tough ask for corporations, because they routinely get involved in all publicity, and if they do the publicity is not independent. In practice, it means the coverage needs to be critical (academic term). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

      We've had these conversations multiple times. Editors are firm that there must be multiple independent reliable sources (except for NPROF, which everyone else has given up on). The necessity of independent sources is widely agreed upon. Once we get past this point, to the point where we talk about secondary sources and SIGCOV, the level of agreement declines significantly. So: Here there be dragons, but I think it's worth examining some of the dragons.

      One problem is that people have trouble remembering that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, especially when that distinction means their favorite subject isn't notable. Many [independent] news articles are not secondary sources, and if you're looking at a smaller local newspaper, most of the content isn't. A secondary source requires that it be based on other sources (so, not breaking news, not eyewitness reporting, not direct investigative journalism, etc.) and that it involve some sort of analysis or synthesis of those other sources (so, not police blotters, not re-printed press releases, etc.). It doesn't require much of this transformational quality, but it does require some of it. So, e.g., if the source says "Big Corp reported quarterly earnings of X", that's an independent primary source (yes, independent even though the numbers presumably come straight out of the company's mouth, and primary because it merely repeats the original source). If, however, the source says "Big Corp reported quarterly earnings of X, which was more than Other Corp", then that's an independent secondary source (because even the simplest level of comparison counts as 'analysis'). There have even been discussions in the past (quick example) about whether the GNG ought to require secondary coverage at all, especially since in practice CSD and AFD have a history of handwaving away that requirement by simply declaring that whatever sources we want should be called secondary whenever it's convenient for us.

      As for what SIGCOV means, the confusion and disagreement at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 69#SIGCOV is badly explained is probably more informative than anything that I could write here. We have had multiple conversations about this over the years (quick example), and we always end up at the same point: editors don't unanimously agree on what SIGCOV is, but we know it when we see it.

      The main difference between GNG and CORP is in what you do with independent reliable sources that have some of the other desirable qualities, but not all, or not all to a significant degree. The two options are that the rules are exclusive (short sources don't count at all, which is the CORP model) or additive (short sources can be combined to achieve SIGCOV, which is what most – but not quite all – editors believe about the GNG). The GNG does not say that you must absolutely ignore all independent but brief sources. The GNG is trying to get you to a point at which it's possible to write a decent article. It is not trying to exclude any subject that we could write an article about. If you could write a decent article with a large stack of brief independent reliable sources, that, between them all, provide a substantial amount of information about the subject, or with a pile of mostly primary sources, then that's acceptable under the GNG (see, e.g., nearly every article created around a natural disaster and many articles about professional athletes). Under CORP, however, you throw away all independent reliable sources that aren't also secondary, all independent reliable sources that aren't also long enough, and all independent reliable sources that contain certain specified content (e.g., earnings reports). Then you look only at what's left, and decide whether you still have at least two independent+secondary+lengthy reliable sources. These are not the same thing.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, there’s a false assertion there. they do not share your view that a reliable source in which the subject is somehow "involved" is necessarily non-independent. I do not believe that. I have never believed that. We have many discussions, but I don’t recall you and I being is disagreement. I have engaged in contentious debate, to argue that for every secondary source, the source was non-independent. I don’t recall you being involved in these discussions. You say “somehow”, which implies a vague non-seriousness, so I think you are inviting me to respond. How do I determine whether a secondary source is non-independent? If the subject is quoted, and if the subject provides photographs or poses for photographs, in the source reference, these are clues to examine the text carefully. The approach here is historiography. What is the information, and where did that information come from. Go through the source text, paragraph by paragraph, look for secondary source material being comment, analysis, qualitative assessment of facts. Look especially for adjectives, as primary source material doesn’t usually attach adjectives to facts. Then ask yourself, who made that transformative information? Was it the writer, or did the writer copy directly from the subject or their PR statements? If, for every paragraph containing secondary source content about the subject, the information is decided sourced from the subject, then I call it non-independent. It is usually quite easy, the story repeats a lot. A company has success and is promoting itself. The focus might be the company, or a product. A freelance writer is the author of the story. In no other publication has this freelance writer expressed opinions about the subject. In this story, the freelance writer expresses no author comment. The content is all positive, and often characterisable as “puff”. It is not that the subject was involved, or provided quotes, it’s that every sentence of secondary source information came from the the CEO, founder, or PR spokesperson of the company that is the subject or makes the product that is the subject.
And this all comes from the GNG, necessarily, because the GNG necessarily derived from WP:PSTS, because there must be secondary sources, and secondary sources produced by the subject are not allowed to demonstrate notability. An autobiography doesn’t demonstrate notability. PR self-commentary does not demonstrate notability. A freelance writer who out of the blue prosifies selected autobiographical content and PR self-comments does not, through doing this, demonstrate notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You wrote: they routinely get involved in all publicity, and if they do the publicity is not independent, which is an absolute statement: no matter how much or how little their involvement actually is, the fact of their involvement at all (i.e., involvement "somehow") makes the source non-independent. It sounds now like you meant that the publicity sometimes is not independent instead (IMO a much more defensible view).

I am doubtful that we should take a historiographical approach. That has led to problems and has, in my experience, been an approach used by POV pushers. I think it is more practical for editors to take what you might call a "reputational" approach: if the publisher is independent of the subject, then the publication is independent. You might want to add (as CORP has for years) preference for publications that aren't too narrow or niche-y in focus: a large daily newspaper is always independent of any corporation it writes about (except itself/its owner), even if an actual majority of the facts in a given news article was taken directly from the subject of the news article.

(Also, I doubt your claim that primary source material doesn’t usually attach adjectives to facts; glowing adjectives seem to be stock in trade for press releases. I looked at a few press releases today at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/. Every press release I looked at contained promotional adjectives, and most of them had such adjectives in the first sentence.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this is proving very interesting, and I think important. I think we are misaligning on source typing here. A glowing adjectives press release, yes I am familiar with them, I think these would be batter classified as first-person secondary sources, not primary sources. They may be primary sources for what the company said about itself and its products, but adjectives mean the facts are being spun, and this press release spin is a poor primary source, and is unreliable for the facts it mentions in passing. If it was read by the CEO, probably the facts are ok, but find the real primary sources please. If it’s a news item on their website, check the credentials and reputation of the author, if the author is actually named.

I think the historiological approach to information analysis, and backtracking to the original source, is really useful for NCORP failing cases, to explain to other editors why the putative independent comment is not independent. Reputation of the publisher is also very important to consider, I consider that an earlier check in the source analysis process.

I think this is all well grounded in policy, and was best articulated in WP:A. WP:N and the SNGs are a fair job in relating policy to specific areas, but with difficulty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I see your line of reasoning about the primary/secondary idea, but I think that, since we are (in our hypothetical scenario) using the press from Big Corp to write the Wikipedia article about Big Corp, Wikipedians should consider it a first-person primary source precisely because we are using it "for what the company said about itself and its products".

But, more importantly, I don't think that the presence of an adjective means that the facts are being spun. Consider this sentence: "Big Corp sells large widgets for 49¢ and small widgets for 29¢." The words large and small are adjectives, but where's the spin? What about "Big Corp is the world's largest manufacturer of widgets" or "Big Corp announced a stock divided of 12¢ per share, the largest dividend in the company's 80-year history"? It's promotional, but I don't think that it qualifies as Spin (propaganda). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The presence of an adjective means little by itself, its something to look for to analyse. Adjectives are something to look for, because they often mean a judgement is being made, and then the question is: Who made that judgement?. Small and big may reflect a simple criterion. For some real contentious examples, two I got deep into are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy John (apparel company) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Quantum Technologies (2nd nomination). Both involved putative independent secondary sources that one careful analysis I think, for every source, if there was secondary source content, it was logical to deduce that the secondary source comment, the qualatative comments about the product, had come from the company, the company's CEO, or a company publication. An example: "Tommy John proudly boasts that it has solved this eternal masculine woe"[1]. This is not an objective statement of a defined problem having been solved. "Proudly"? How does the writer know that the boast was done proudly? Where is the primary source that the writer is building on further transformative comment? It is just not plausible that this is not a non-independent puff piece. Is there a better way to explain why this is not a notability-demonstrating source? Would you criticise Business Insider as a non-reputable publisher?

I think we strayed from NCORP vs GNG. I think the difference is that the question of source independence if often the crux on NCORP cases, and is rarely the crux in non NCORP cases. Where is it the case that source independence is in question, and it is not NCORP, it problem is sort of NCORP. Examples like book notability, where sales are a motivation. Or a PROF promotion, where the PROF has diverged to be selling a product or service. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don’t see where GNG and NCORP deviate... Both guidelines call for sources that are 1) reliable, 2) secondary and 3) independent of the subject. NCORP goes into more detail, but the standard is the same. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, CORP also requires that each 'countable' source separately contain SIGCOV about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Arguably, NCORP places far far more weight (by design) on independence as to avoid the paid editing/promotional material problem. The GNG is more worried on significant coverage and less worried on independence as long as its too tightly dependent (a bio sourced to only the bio's website), in broad terms. --Masem (t) 17:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The one thing that editors are in total agreement about is that the GNG requires you to ignore all non-independent sources. They argue over everything else, but independence is the bedrock of the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with Masem. NCORP places far more weight on independence. Independence is always absolute, but pretty much it is only CORP associated topics where someone attempts routinely and professionally to create native advertising, where they attempt to AstroTurf comments about themselves without revealing that these are these self-authored promotional comments. Only corporations routinely pay independent others (freelance writers) to write favourable opinions about themselves. Not even advocacy groups do this, advocacy groups try to avoid spending money on non-insiders. FRINGE groups don’t do this, FRINGE groups are not desired associates of professional freelance writers. It is only a major issue for CORP, for other subject areas, secondary source content is rarely paid placed content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's messier than that. AltMed groups are FRINGE groups, and they are notorious for paying for "independent" sources. It lets the manufacturers get around US drug regulations. They can't put on their website a statement like "This herb cures cancer!" but they can, and do, find true believers and sponsor them to write "independent" books and create "independent" websites that "just happen" to say what the company wants the world to read.

  I also doubt that you believe this is problem is unique to "corporations". The same problems of self-promotion bedevil notability questions around music, film, books, and politicians. Imagine the scorn we'd heap on someone naïve enough to claim "The Trump campaign didn't routinely and professionally create native advertising. The Trump campaign never astroturfed comments about themselves. The Trump campaign always revealed their self-authored promotional comments. The Trump campaign never paid freelance writers to write favourable opinions. The Trump campaign only rarely paid for content." You'd be laughed out of Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

On the "how do they differ" question. First the obvious, which is that most of NCORP is typical SNG stuff and so of course it's different. More to the actual point, SNG has a tougher standard for sources-that-count. IMO in practice the SNG modifies the sourcing-GNG in this respect. If one accepts that, then everything is tidy. If one doesn't then there are some unsolvable quandaries. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

As one example, WP:CORPDEPTH applies within the domain of NORG, whereas WP:SIGCOV applies within the GNG's domain. Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, maybe you and @Blueboar can hash this out. Either "the standard is the same" or CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV are different. It's not possible for both of those statements to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV as both making the same point (just with different language). I still think the standard is the same. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by making the same point. Are they animated by the same underlying principle/value? Sure they are. Do they place the same sourcing requirements on articles? No; no, they do not. Similarly, WP:SIRS applies to organizations but not to other articles. Neither does WP:AUD, and the fact that editors periodically propose that the scope of AUD be expanded to all GNG interpretation actually corroborates the widespread recognition that it currently has a more limited scope. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

What different requirements do SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH place on articles, other than giving specific examples germaine to corporate/commercial articles? --Jayron32 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest example is the statement in SIGCOV, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no similar statement in CORPDEPTH, and all of its "Examples of significant coverage" do, in fact, give the organization as the main topic of the source material. Likewise, CORPDEPTH specifies that Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. There is no similar requirement in SIGCOV and in fact the "Sources" section of SIGCOV allows that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected - in other words, there is no minimum depth requirement (apart from a source not being a trivial mention) for a source to contribute to GNG notability, whereas SIRS requires "deep or significant coverage" (as defined in the passage I quoted) for any source to contribute to NORG. This is only the tip of the iceberg of differences, but I trust that it points in the right direction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" are just examples of significant coverage. The clarify what is significant in the realm of commercial entities, they don't establish a functional additional hurdle any other article would not also require. Also, CORPDEPTH does specifically allow for a commercial entity to not be the main topic of the source. It specifically says "unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself", which is to say, a biography of a CEO which is the main topic of the source can also be used for CORPDEPTH if the source also "devotes significant attention to the company itself". That sounds exactly in line with the statement at SIGCOV that says "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". ALso also, you cite the fact that SIGCOV says "multiple sources are generally expected". CORPDEPTH says the same thing. So far, we have a bunch of parallel statements in both documents, albeit not word-for-word the same, but which serve the same function, along with CORPDEPTH giving clarifying examples which are specifically germane to commercial entities. --Jayron32 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, the two rulesets are interpreted very differently at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

How, would I, voting in an AFD, know by reading the two that I'm supposed to vote on an imaginary higher standard unless the higher standards is made plain? You assert that the two are "interpreted very differently" at AFD, but how does someone know that unless it is written down somewhere? Where would I, as a someone who is researching through Wikipedia policy, trying to find how to vote in an AFD, know this, given the lack of difference that I note above? --Jayron32 18:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The current text of WP:SNG refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies - I would normally understand that as pointing to a more precise and demanding requirement than that of belonging to the GNG (or, indeed, most other SNGs). Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jayron, I considered drawing attention (through added emphasis) to the element in the SOGCOV quotation I offered above, and clearly I should have done so. My point was that SOGCOV explicitly allows multiple lesser (but non-trivial) mentions to equate to one higher-quality or in-depth reference, and SIRS explicitly does not.

And my point about the main topic issue is that all of the examples given in CORPDEPTH'S "Examples of significant coverage" are of whole-source coverage, and even the passage you point to specifies significant attention, which has to be understood in the sense of Deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Certainly this "serves the same fuction" as the vague requirememt in SIGCOV (more than a brief mention, but not necessarily a main topic), but it is also much more demanding, both as written and in practice at deletion discussions. I am puzzled that you do not see this difference. The key phrase of CORPDEPTH (which I just quoted) is not simply a list of examples; it is a test of significance that does not apply elsewhere on WP. I have never seen it read the way you suggest. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Look, my whole point is not that we shouldn't be strict in fighting against people using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Stamp that shit out with fire. My point is that the GNG is the main rule we go by; SNGs exist to clarify what the GNG means. The GNG is deliberately vague, it requires significant coverage. Significant is a vague word. WP:NCORP just explains "what is significant enough in regards to corporations". The argument that clarifying something invalidates the thing that it is clarifying is what I am finding so confusing. If the GNG didn't matter, what is NCORP clarifying? Contrawise, the existence of the GNG doesn't invalidate NCORP merely because NCORP clarifies the GNG. The GNG is the overriding principle. It requires significant, independent, reliable coverage. The SNGs don't invalidate that requirement. They explain what that means for different subjects. NSPORT explains what "significant" means for sports, what "independent" means for sports, what "reliable" means for sports. NPROF explains what "significant" means for academics, what "independent" means for academics, what "reliable" means for academics. NCORP explains what "significant" means for commercial entities, what "independent" means for commercial entities, what "reliable" means for commercial entities. The idea that somehow, that makes GNG wrong or invalid is nonsensical; it starts from the GNG and clarifies what it means in this realm. I'm baffled by the insistence that that somehow makes the GNG wrong. --Jayron32 18:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not have SNGs only to clarify what the GNG means in a certain domain - please read WP:SNG. We have SNGs to clarify what Notability means in specific domains, whereas the GNG applies as another path (q.v. criteria like WP:NAUTHOR which allows for notability through the specific guideline or through NBIO, which is basically GNG for humans). In certain areas, the SNG is the only path to notability - please see WP:NNUMBER if you are skeptical that these can set a much higher bar than the GNG, and entirely replace it in a limited domain. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You're talking gibberish now. GNG is notability. It's the same basic thing. You're just making shit up because you're more interested in making me appear to be a loser in an argument than you are in anything else. There's no point in carrying this on with you since it's apparent your own sense of winning against others is more important to you than anything that resembles making Wikipedia better. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG is a subsection of WP:N; it is not the same ... thing. Whatever shit I might be making up, that distinction is not part of it, and is actually a crucial conceptual difference in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32, maybe you'd like to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Noor Hospitals. I'm not saying this is how it should be interpreted. I'm saying this is how it is interpreted (by some editors?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in being in charge of anyone else's opinion on these things. I'm just telling you how I apply them. People are free to read the guidelines and come to their own, perhaps, different conclusions than I do. I've always been OK with that. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If read take the guidelines precisely and logically, they are self conflicting and there is no definition of notability.Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works provides details on that. And so there are unanswerable questions at the general level and individual case level. But at the overall level the Wikipedia notability ecosystem mostly makes it work. IMO the same essay describes the definition that the notability ecosystem uses, how it does that and resolves the quandaries. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Schools, NORG, and the GNG

This page contains WP:NSCHOOL, which states that, with the exception of for-profit schools, "All universities, colleges and schools...must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." I've never considered this language to be very ambiguous: in my view, it quite clearly states that meeting the GNG is sufficient on its own and that meeting the stricter standards of WP:ORG (most notably, in this context, WP:AUD) is superfluous. The phrases "or" and "either" show that it operates in the disjunctive, providing independent options for showing notability. In my experience, most editors share this view. I was quite sternly rebuked for it, though, by someone who seems to have a very different interpretation of it. Since this issue has cropped up elsewhere (and led to several tense exchanges), I'd appreciate hearing some perspectives: under the guideline as currently written, is meeting the GNG sufficient for establishing a school's notability, or must the school also comply with WP:ORG (esp. WP:AUD, WP:ORGDEPTH, etc.)? This, of course, isn't a formal RfC: it's just an informal attempt to solicit some thoughts on the issue. Pinging Adamant1 and Grand'mere Eugene, both of whom have expressed interest in this question in one or more of the discussions linked above. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

From my side of this the contention seems to mostly come down to three things, what the phrase "only provides a support to mainstream education" means, when the "or both" part of the sentence comes into it, and if WP:AUD applies to schools or not.

For me, I'd assume that a private school by it's nature provides support to "mainstream education." Someone in another discussion said that "mainstream education" means "not special education" though. I assume if the guidelines were talking about schools that provide special education versus ones that don't it would just say so. Whereas, I could see that part of the guideline apply to a small private high school being less notable then say a larger public high school. I know where I live the private catholic high school is only a support to and less notable then our public high schools. If "only provides a support to mainstream education" means "special education" though and is not talking about public/private schools, then it should explicitly say so. That said, I'd find it extremely weird if Wikipedia was being biased about the notability of special education schools.

On the "or both" thing, I can't imagine a situation where something that passes NORG would not already also pass GNG (or really visa versa). As both require non-trivial coverage and there are only superficial differences between them at best. In the meantime, Extraordinary Writ and a few others treat the guideline like it only says that schools only have to pass GNG when that's not what it says though. Which isn't helpful. So that whole part of the sentences wording is off, seems to be getting ignored, and therefore really needs to clarified.

With WP:AUD, it applies to organizations, schools are organizations, WP:NSCHOOL is a part WP:NORG, and there's nothing that says subsections of WP:NORG have special exemption from everything else in the overall guidelines about organizations or that some types of organizations (like schools) are exempt from it. WP:NSCHOOL is meant to clarify the notability guidelines for schools. Not exclude them from having to meet broader guidelines. So, as far as I'm concerned its perfectly fine to apply WP:AUD to schools. Extraordinary Writ and a few other people seem to think WP:NSCHOOL is a completely separate guideline from WP:NORG and therefore schools shouldn't have to follow anything else in it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely think WP:AUD should apply to schools. A local high school is likely to get a fair amount of routine coverage in the local town paper: reports on who won the annual Science Fair… updates on how the girl’s basketball team is doing… congratulations to the senior class at graduation… etc.

Such routine local coverage does not demonstrate that the school stands out in any way. It does not indicate that the school is notable. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Extraordinary Writ for initiating this conversation. Adamant1, WP:NSCHOOL is an alternate criteria, one of many described in the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations", which says,

Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements

1. these alternate criteria,
2. the primary criteria for organizations, or
3. the general notability guideline

That language is reiterated in the "either / or" construct of NPSCHOOL: must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. Thus, WP:GNG requirements alone are sufficient for schools and universities, which "are considered notable if they meet one of the sourcing requirements". Thus most schools are not required to meet the additional NORG requirements of AUD or ORGDEPTH.

The only schools specifically called out as needing to meet NORG are for-profit institutions, which are considered "commercial organizations" and care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. In other words, WP:NOTADVERTISING.

As I've mentioned in one of the AfD discussions, Adamant1, "mainstream" refers to the curriculum used in "universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools". Other schools that provide support for mainstream schools in specialized subject areas (for example, specialized music, dance, theatre, or various sports, or schools for the blind, or schools for children with behavioral issues, or yes, special ed schools) also only need to meet one of the sourcing requirements listed. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to this: Can a school that ONLY receives local coverage (and thus would not pass AUD) pass GNG? Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think that depends on what the significant coverage is of the school that is being offered. Considering that the bulk of local coverage of the school likely will fall into routine coverage (how their sports teams did, etc.), having some local, sufficiently independent sources that are sufficiently reliable that go well into depth into areas well beyond routine coverage (the history of the building, notable events, education structural changes, etc.) would clearly be a preferred state for an article, the AUD issue not as critical. I would think that's the exceptional part, and so we're typically left with schools that have primarily routine coverage from local sources with maybe a smattering of non-routine aspects, and that would not be sufficient for GNG. --Masem (t) 13:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

AUD is not required for GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Re "Thus, WP:GNG requirements alone are sufficient for schools and universities" that's wrong. "or both" doesn't mean mean "only GNG." The question is when does "both" apply or when doesn't it. The whole "For-profit educational organizations" bit isn't even in the same sentence and it is a different part of the clause. So I doubt that's the only instance of where NORG needs to apply.

Re "The only schools specifically called out as needing to meet NORG are for-profit institutions." That's clearly wrong. Nothing in the paragraph says that for-profit schools are the only ones that have to pass NORG. It pretty explicitly says non-mainstream schools have to also. Regardless of if they are for-profit. I don't think Wikipedia requires people to comb through IRS fillings to determine if a school is non-profit or not either and most of the time that information isn't available in the article.

Re "mainstream" refers to the curriculum used in "universities." I'm aware that you said that. Do you have a link to back that up with though? It would be utterly ridiculous that something like a world renowned chef school would inherently be less notable in Wikipedia then say a local community college that provides basic cooking classes just because the chef school isn't part of the "mainstream" education system (whatever that is or means).

Re "AUD is not required for GNG." AUD didn't just come out of thin air. It's based on wider guidelines in Wikipedia and the purpose of it. Most style guidelines say AUD matters to notability. There is nothing that says schools or anything else have outs from those guidelines. Nor does anything say that just because there's specific guidelines for something that it's then OK to toss out or ignore the broader ones. It's assumed that AUD matters to everything we do in Wikipedia. "notability" inherently means "worthy of note" and there's absolutely zero that's inherently worthy of note about a high school cheer team. So an article based only on that kind of coverage is inherently not going to be notable. That doesn't mean the cheer team isn't notable to locals or the parents of the kids that are in it, it's not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned though. Which is what AUD is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, your opinions in the rant above are not based on careful reading of the actual criteria, which I noted in green. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

discounting other people's posts as "rants" instead of providing counter evidence is a really weak , bad faithed way to do this. I don't expect people to read every word I wrote and your free to pick out key points to refute. This isn't a thing that can be resolved or explained in 2 sentence paragraphs though. Especially since I was responding multiple messages. Its pretty weak to write like 5 different messages and then claim the other person is ranting for responding to them. If all your messages about this were combined they would be about the same length. Also, I've cited the guidelines just as much (if not more) then you have. You just cant provide counter evidence to anything I've said so you malign it as "opinioned ranting" instead. At some point I'd love to see one these conversation not just turn into personal attacks by people on your side. Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I simply urge you to carefully read the beginning of Section 4 of NORG and then directly below it, read Section 4.2, NSCHOOL. The beginning of Section 4 includes this text: "Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements", followed by 3 options: "these alternate criteria," "the primary criteria for organizations, or" "the general notability guideline". That's pretty clear: only one of the sourcing requirements need be met. Then read section 4.2, the alternate criterion which says schools "must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both". Taken together, those alternate notability guidelines specify that only one sourcing requirement must be met, and one of the acceptable options is GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your still ignoring the "or both" part. And I simply asked you to provide a link to a discussion that determined "mainstream refers to the curriculum" and how we go about determining it. You didn't provide either. Also, realistically how is anyone suppose to determine where a school gets their funding from? No one has here has easy access to that kind of information outside if the school is public or private. Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If I asked you to bring me "an apple, a banana, or both", you would be well within your rights to bring me only a banana. The same is true here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So in other words, Neither of you have a link to any discussions about this and you can't tell me how to determine things using the criteria your telling me I should be using. Just how to bring you fruit. Right. Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GNG requires independent and reliable sourcing. While this is not directly the same concept as AUD, it is in the same vein: as we get to topics that involve a smaller and smaller venue (eg in discussion of schools in smaller towns), coverage provided only by local sources may start to lose some of independent and reliable factors. A newspaper in a town of 10,000 ppl may not have the rigors of editorial control as we'd come to expect in a large newspaper, and/or they may have a vested interest to make sure the paper helps keeps the town's citizens abreast of local news only and not worry about any larger news input. As such , an article that is only sourced to these types of works and otherwise doesn't meet other SNGs could fail the GNG. It is not as strong a requirement as AUD here but works on the same principle. (Note that this does not dismiss these sources to be used once notability is shown however). --Masem (t) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Next question: can anyone point me to some example AFD noms (say three) where a school passed GNG but with sources that do not pass AUD? Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment:

1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whitefield_Academy_(Missouri)
2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cooperstown_Junior/Senior_High_School_(2nd_nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flagstaff_Arts_and_Leadership_Academy

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Meh… all three of those have at least some coverage in regional media (not necessarily cited in the article)… so I would say they would pass AUD. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I like that your first example was kept based on Necrothesp (who thinks schools are inharently notable no matter what), an I.P. voter, and primary/press releases. As if it supports your arguements or was guideline based. I find it extremely hard to believe you even care about the guidelines and aren't just cherry picking what fits your agenda when your citing such obviously horrible examples. Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Just on a point of information, I do not think "schools are inharently notable no matter what". I think most secondary schools are notable. Big difference. I have been arguing this for many years (I originally wrote this back in 2006), and until fairly recently this was the general consensus on Wikipedia. It is still a pretty widely held view, especially for schools in the western world (sadly, WP:SYSTEMIC has to apply here) that mostly have plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1,

1. Mainstreaming (education) is helpful WP article. Special ed includes both students with disabilities and also talented and gifted students, who may need support in subjects like dance, musical performance, robotics and engineering topics, or other subjects not taught in the mainstream curriculum.
2. As a matter of logic, if the requirement is either (1) or (2) or both, the third option (both) is one way to fulfill the requirement, as are options (1) or (2). Granted, school articles that meet NORG are unlikely to fail GNG, but that is a moot point, irrelevant to the tenet that no-for-profit schools passing GNG meet the notability requirement for schools.
3. Most private schools are supported by foundations, and are not considered "for profit". Johnpacklambert left a useful note on my Talk Page clarifying the difference. In the U.S. the NCES search engine identifies public, private and for-profit institutions. Here's an example delineating all the data that the search engine returned for the University of Phoenix. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

1. I don't think a badly referenced, vague article should be the only thing we are going on when it comes to contentious issues. Especially when they involve the wording in guidelines. Which we should be able to trace back to when and why the wording was added. Otherwise, the disagreement just boils down to some form of "my dictionary is more of an authority then yours."

1. I'm sick of discussion the "or both" thing. So I'm just going to pass on it for now.

1. Which is exactly why I've been using private/public as a rational in my AfD votes. I'm glad we can all agree that me doing so was correct and didn't need the repeated calling out. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Nobody here has agreed with your private-public distinction. To the contrary, Grand'mere Eugene said in the post directly above yours that "most private schools...are not considered for-profit." JPL agrees, saying that in his experience "the most notable schools are Catholic (i.e. private) schools." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

JPL can say whatever they want. I highly doubt most notable schools are Catholic though. There's like 130,930 schools total in the US and out of those only like 7,498 are Catholic. That's only like 5% of the total. Way less if you take out the 6,288 Catholic elementary schools that Wikipedia by default doesn't consider notable. I'm pretty sure way more then 1,000 schools in America are notable. Otherwise, it's pretty weird you and Grand'mere Eugene vote keep on school articles so much. Let alone that this conversation is even happening in the first place. In the meantime, I'm perfectly fine changing "public/private" to "not Catholic/Catholic" lol.--Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have only gotten somewhat through the above, so my thoughts are preliminary. I think "only provides a support to general education" is not targeting Catholic schools, other private schools, and not most special education schools. To begin with where I live in Detroit, the most notable schools are Catholic high schools. I think "only provides a support to mainstream education" is meant to say we do not consider private specialized "schools" of music like the one my sister-in-law runs in Michigan notable, nor a private art school that teaches high schoolers and younger students to do various forms of art, nor every "dance academy" etc. I am thinking that is what was meant. On the other hand, since the argument to keep high schools at least in the US boils down to that in many areas they are the mainstay of the community, the football and sometimes other sports programs gathering the whole community, the marching band rallying the town either by appearing in the local parades or representing them elsewhere, and the theatrical productions drawing a wide cross-section of the community as an audience and even sometimes having cast members who are not students. This was not quite what my high school in Sterling Heights, Michigan was, and my step-daughters high school in Detroit, Michigan was even less of a community focal point. Before high school most of my time in high school had been in swimmming pools enrolled through city parks and rec programs, although I had seen one or two high school productions of plays or recitations of various types. Private schools less often are community centers like this, but they sometimes are. What really does not have this function is small, free standing schools that provide special education services, and the normally much smaller than the regular high schools alternate high schools. Having seen so many articles in Wikipedia with no sources of any kind, part of me wonders if it is worth going after poorly sourced articles. On the other hand, we have so many high school articles that tell us not at all when the school was founded I have a sense they are shallow and not going anywhere. I have not actually seen any coherent argument why high schools should be under different rules than other organizations, and thus in that respect I think both WP:AUD and WP:ORGDEPTH should apply. These rules exist because name dropping organizations will occur so often in ways that in no way indicate they are notable in a way that does not happen with people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If something is a "world renonw" chef school, we are going to find clearly non-local coverage of it. What we do not is to treat a for-profit institution that teaches music classes including those to high school students as a notable institution. Why would we consider the dance school at the local strip mall more notable than the acupuncture office and the pizza place it is sandwiched through. Not every dojo in a suburban neighborhood is notable. However, we are drowning in articles on educational institutions that lack any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In the US, fully for-profit schools at the college level is a rare occurance. Most private high schools in the US are either A-controlled by a religious organization which are by definition non-profit, or 2-controlled by a private foundation. Most for profit sub-tertiary schools in the US are charter schools, which have government authorization and obtain a profit by spending less of the allotted per-pupil education dollars on saleries, wages, supplies and other costs than do public schools that use the same amount (or sometimes more) money but fully spend it all and have no profit. We seem to have moved away from considering all high schools default notable. What we lack at present though is high school articles where people have even bothered mining the local paper to find all the references to student walk outs, sports championships and the like over the years. Partly because that level of digging through the local paper will be difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that most non-religious private schools are supported by a foundation. Certainly none of the ones I have been in contact with were (I went to both a private grade school and a private secondary school… and then taught at several others for 20 years). They had capital and endowment funds, but they were not structured as a foundation. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In how the fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem works, (WP:How Wikipedia notability works ) I think that when / if a school is a substantial geographic place / entity then that aspect becomes a factor that tends to weight the process towards inclusion.North8000 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think using an essay instead of better defining things is the best way to go. That said, I mostly agree with your statement in the discussion above this one that if the guidelines are taken precisely and logically, they are self conflicting and there is no definition. Most of the issues tend to happen when people think that's not the case and that their definition is the "correct" or only one. That doesn't mean we couldn't come up with non-self conflicting guidelines though. With schools in particular, although I disagree with some of them I think @Bearian:'s standards would be a good starting point. If there was an RfC for such standards I'd probably vote to implement them even though I disagree with some of it, because some clear standards that can be modified latter if need be are better then the extremely vague, overly broad wording that's currently in the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The WP:NSCHOOL requirement ("must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both") is logically clear (satisfy A, or satisfy B, or satisfy A and B), although the "or both" is superfluous. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of the superfluous "or both" would probably help clarify things. Since it just needlessly muddies the waters of something that doesn't need to be muddied anymore then it already is. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

* Comment :Apologies, I came late to the debate, merely stumbling on it- as I avoid pages like this like the plague, leaving it to the distinguished names who have I have met in the past and are more erudite. We are continuously revisiting creative interpretations of GNG and ORG at ADFs. So keeping it simple- we have WP:BOLD and WP:AGF to fall back on if there is no concensus. Keeping it simple- WP:ORG is only needed if WP:GNG isn't sufficient. It says-The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Putting this in an EU/EU context, it cannot be used for state funded schools only for private schools who do not have a profit prohibition in their deed of trust. No matter, all state schools in Europe can manage with GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because along with the funding comes a requirement for appraisal, which must be published by the appraiser (eg OFSTED in the UK). There does seem a tendency to view all this through US lenses where the separation of governance is far weaker- leading to independence being compromised, and the tendency to make judgements as if the availability of documents is total, making it difficult to establish and develop articles on any schools in south asia. (Another issue). Technical point:when an editor @Necrothesp: is mentioned in the discussion- shouldn't he be pinged ClemRutter (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, Adamant1. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)