Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

NBRII draft page review

I am a rookie here so please forgive any transgressions. I have recently created a draft of a page describing the company that I work for. Someone before me created a page for the same company but was perhaps a little overzealous and created a page that was deemed to be very spammy. I do not want to repeat this mistake.

After some discussions and great help from other Wikipedians,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_47#Stop_me_before_I_spam_again

I am trying to post a more unbiased account of the company. As I said, I do work for the company but I am not posting this for marketing reasons. The company has been in business for over 28 years and has been of service to many very large corporations. I truly feel it is a vital and noteworthy organization.

Could someone please review my draft and give me any criticisms or corrections that would help make sure this page isn't out of line? I would like to be more confidant before I take it live.

Thank you in advance for any help. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jopa123/nbri

Jopa123 (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need to read WP:COI. As to your proposal, it fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CORP. Notability from employees is mentioned but notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback it is much appreciated. Do you have time to clarify a little? I have read the WP:COI. Being a private company and dealing with few, although major, clients it is not likely that a non-employee will create a page regarding the company and I really feel it would be a disservice to Wikipedia not to have an entry about them. I attempted to be as objective as I could.

My process was this, I copied the page from IBM since I felt it was very cut and dry and was probably created by a non-employee. I realize we are no IBM, but I tried to model the page after this. I also looked at competitors who are currently listed in Wikipedia. I tried to emulate what they did since their listings were obviously approved. I stripped out the things that I would personally flag for pure marketing material. And I tried to stay minimalist. This way I could at least have the basic company description listed.

Any ideas on how I can improve the violations that you discuss? As for the WP:RS, I listed the New York Times posting of Dr. West's materials and a PRWEB posting about Dr. Reed. As to WP:V, is there certain areas that need more verification? In regards to the notability, I am really not sure how to impress the fact that this is a major organization. Would a client list help?

I am not being argumentative. I am truly trying to understand and improve. Thanks again for your help

Jopa123 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The COI guideline does not say you can not edit, however it discourages it. From the guideline, Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount. In this case one could say that you are promoting the interests of the company since you are employed by them. Better to wait until someone else writes the article.

I think you need to read WP:RS again. What is needed is sources that have the company as a major topic and independent of the company. A mention does not work. The information from or about the employees also does not meet this for the company. The company being mentioned is not a case to establish notability.

The layout or format of the article is not of concern at this point. It is a matter of content so using the IBM article as a guide is not really an issue of doing anything right or wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if I am getting closer to compliance with the WP:RS, please. Thanks for any and all help. Jopa123 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Hospitals

I would ask that we create some sort of policy regarding notability of hospitals and medical centres. Far to many articles out there that are using the claim "I am a hospital/medical centre therefore I am notable" What establishes notability for a hospital? Does it have to have the normal independent reliable sources? benjicharlton (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of questionable articles? Clearly acute care hospitals are notable. Many special purpose hospitals are going to be notable since they will be sourced. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a function of reliable secondary sources. There is no such thing as "instant notability." If there isn't that kind of coverage, any article about the hospital would be WP:OR and would fail WP:V. Acute care hospitals are not notable just because they are acute care hospitals, they are notable because reliable secondary sources have information about them. There are some suggestions of WP:IAR that have been kicked around for articles with robust external primary sources (i.e. detailed census data). SDY (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

on "instant notability" - there is a class of articles for which notability is assumed: populated places (i.e. towns, villages and the like). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is more accurate to say that WP consensus is that articles on populated places will be kept in Wikipedia regardless of the place's (Wikipedia-defined)notability, (defined as receiving significant coverage in relaible secondary sources). A subtle, but important, difference. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I was referring to with the IAR and the census (censi? censuses? censora? fnord?) SDY (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in my mind I agree if a hospital is sourced it should be notable... but why are Acute Care hospitals notable (mind you my definition of acute care and yours are probable different) I australia we have many many small acute or primary care facilities, which generally stabilize severe patients prior to transfer to what we call a tertiary referral facility, which there might be 2 or 3 per state. BUT examples : - here we go.

Markham Stouffville Hospital

Dr.Jeyasekharan Medical trust and nursing home

Trinity Medical Center

Mat-Su Regional Medical Center

Gritman Medical Center

Johns Hopkins Hospital I include this link as this is an example of a very notable hospital - I mean I have heard of it in Australia!!

Thomas B. Finan Center

Gleneagles Medical Centre

I think thats a start...I think we need to ask that question "What is Encyclopaedic?" benjicharlton (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the hazards that we should be wary of is WP:NOTDIRECTORY: being a hospital is "not enough." That said, my guess is that hospitals associated with a medical school (for example and most notably Hopkins) can be presumed to be notable. Other than that, it will vary a lot by country. Hospitals without inpatient services are unlikely to be notable in developed countries, but they may be significant for the developing world. I don't know that a straight "yea or nay" answer is available, though I'd probably assume that any hospital that, to borrow from astronomy, is "Clearing the neighbourhood" is notable. SDY (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand upon what you mean by Clearing the neighbourhood benjicharlton (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In essence, a hospital that is the only significant medical facility in an area is more likely to be notable than "one of many." This will generally be reflected in secondary source coverage (i.e. local news) since there isn't much competition to write about. SDY (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is it about the normal rules that isn't adequate here? All organizations need reliable sources. A hospital that receives no media coverage is not notable -- just like any other organization. Given how easy it is for a hospital to get coverage in the local paper, practically any hospital with a publicity department will be able to provide a wide variety of "reliable sources" to support their notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Linking in some prior (closed) AFD debates on Hospitals

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Hopital de l'Hôtel Dieu
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetroWest Medical Center

Stimulate some more debate.benjicharlton (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Benji, is there anything about the existing, normal rules that you think is inadequate here? What particular rules do you think we need to add? If you don't have any specific proposals, perhaps we should get back to doing more important work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically I keep seeing "Its a decent hospital therefore it must be notable" being reasons for keeps in AFD debates, no sources are quoted. The debate ends with a no consensus or weak keep based on the author adding WP:RS. Which does not happen. And even when a second AFD is launched the same reasoning is applied. The problem is that the community members voting have confict of interest to some degree. This seems in direct opposition to WP:N. If so I think we need to clarify the issue, so that AFD debates have guidelines to work by agreed by wikipedia community. If the outcome of this discussion is that hospitals must meet WP:CORP Great!! If not then we need to define what parts they do need to meet. Many reasons for keep that I see are "Dont tell me that my local hospital is not notable they looked after my insert relative". In my opinion as important as that is it does not mean a hospital is notable and that it should have a wikipedia page. More than likely it should be merged into an article on health in the local region. I think that we cannot presume notability of any hospital, if it is notable it will have reliable verifiable independent sources. benjicharlton (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think general notability rules are perfectly adequate in dealing with hospital articles. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything, though, it might be appropriate to have a "non-notability criteria" for hospitals which might trivially meet notability requirements but don't justify a full article, but I'd never endorse it as anything more than a notability essay. A full guideline would be pure WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center as example. The references are actual about a different historical hospital (probably deserving of its own Wikipedia page). None of them mention the Medical Centre. Quoting from the original AFD "if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County" okay so fair enough - but if that was the case the Advocate needs to add reliable sources. But this never happened and a second AFD was killed quickly. It is classic assumption of notability. This is only one example. I mean a hospital closed and a medical centre opens down the road. The medical centre is not notable by default. benjicharlton (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I oppose the "presumed notability" of high schools as well, so I'm with you 100% on this one. SDY (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So we just need to educate the !voters at AfD. A hospital is an organization like any other, and it must have reliable sources just like any other. How could we write a fair and neutral article otherwise? But to make your task easier, I've added hospitals to the list. You might also find it helpful to make sure that such AfDs get listed here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• As a side note - this topic has got a bit under my skin...what is the likely reaction if I start cross checking all listed hospitals and start listing them under this concept... I dont want to appear as a wikidestroyer.benjicharlton (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're likely to have a lot of people mad at you, and it's small consolation to think that there's probably no reason for them to be mad at you. My suggestion is that you {{subst:prod}} such articles slowly, perhaps just one or two at a time, starting with the least notable hospitals, and only proposing deletion after doing an appropriate good-faith search for news articles about the hospital. If you find WP:RSs, then add them to the article instead of prodding it. Please start with the very simple prod process, instead of the overhead-intensive AfD. Particularly with the least notable hospitals, I doubt you'll get any objections. (Objections can be taken to AfD if necessary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that any government run or affiliated hospital is of note. Two examples of the range here are University of California, San Diego Medical Center and Lira Hospital, Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwagner607 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiny newspapers

I'm pretty sure that this guideline (or perhaps WP:N) used to have language that at least suggested that getting your company into a small local newspaper wasn't really adequate proof of notability. (Otherwise, I believe several of my relatives qualify for Wikipedia articles: they were all repeatedly on the front page of the local newspaper... a single-sheet tabloid with a circulation of about two hundred subscribers.)

In a small town, practically any small business is "newsworthy" -- within the town. Opening a barbershop is front-page news in a small enough market. Any non-profit organization, no matter how minor, can get a short story like this one in a local market. But for notability purposes, it shouldn't be good enough to get one story in The Brooklyn Chronicle (circulation <1600^[1] and another in its rival The Grinnell Herald-Register (circulation 2700^[2]), even though this would technically represent media coverage in "multiple independent, third-party reliable sources".

Could we add a suggestion in this guideline that media coverage is generally expected to be national or at least regional in nature? I'd like something that is more 'explanatory' in nature, and that would be helpful to new editors that need to assess the likelihood of their article on a tiny organization being deleted. I have two specific proposals, and am open to all suggestions:

• to change the "alternate criteria" for non-profits from "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found" to "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources that extend beyond the organization's local area can be found."
• to expand the "primary criteria" section to include: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."

Does this seem appropriate to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I strongly agree with this proposol. In my case the local papers articles are not indepedently written, we often get approached by local journalist saying they will write feature pieces if we pay for advertising. The feature piece and add will be on seperate pages. Now there is a clear problem here with defining independence and reliability. (not to mention journalistic integrity) benjicharlton (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Does anyone object? There have been no further comments in the last three days, and if anyone does object, I'd like to hear from you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What does the source's audience mean? How do you measure it? I think that is too difficult to apply and should go. That is going to cause a lot of debate at AfD. The examples you have given fall down anyway without the need to change the guideline. Both are not extensive coverage of the subject and would fail anyway. If articles are not independently written, then again they fail under the original criteria as well as self-promotion. Attention by national media doesn't affect notability and a secondary source is a secondary source. It is really a question of how significant and extensive it is. Assize (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For a general newspaper, audience means circulation. Commercial media publishes these numbers (it's the primary factor in their advertising rates) and consequently these numbers are very easy to find. The reason I didn't use the term "circulation" is because (a) the term is specific to print media and (b) in some instances, you need to consider the actual audience: is this magazine directed towards a particular profession or demographic group? We want to leave room for a small-but-important source. Note as well that I didn't list a specific minimum circulation, because a number that is small for newspapers in New York City might be large for a professional magazine in New Zealand.

My goal, by the way, was not to help the AfD folks. It was to help all the inexperienced editors that want to write an article about their club, and need to figure out whether or not it's likely to be deleted. If you actually have problems at AfD because of this, I'd be willing to provide an "expert opinion" on what I was thinking at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly very strongly object - in both directions , to an unqualified statement. Local newspapers can be RSs for local events to the extent the events are notable. Some of what they contain is not reliable and is press released based, but that's the case for most publications, though to a variable extent. Regional newspapers afreusually based in one city, and what they cover is also sometimes not the least independent. There is no way to avoid human individual evaluation for such things. I would certainly accept a statement that regional and especially local newspapers be used cautiously as evidence of notability. (V is different: as evidence of non-controversial facts about an organization, any newspaper is probably adequate; as evidence for negative blp, almost any newspaper, national or not must be used rather cautiously.) DGG (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, your response confuses me. The statement under discussion has nothing to do with reliability/WP:V and nothing to do with individuals/WP:BLP. It only concerns a determination of notability/WP:N for local organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic organizations

While it is true that many academic organizations have been mentioned in the news media and some have been the subject of independent scholarly research, many are not - they play a crucial role within the Academy but in fact are often not of interest to the news media or of scholars themselves. I don't think this policy covers such organizations adequately.

One question I have concerns this sentence in the policy: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Does this imply that an organization whose activities are of national or international scope are usually notable? The documentation for this by the way is almost always internally generated, because the only people who care about the organization's activities are its members.

But national academic organizations have many members, and more to the point most academics of a given field usually belong to the organization i.e. it is inclusive.

Might it be worth distinguishing between special interest organizations and professional organizations? It seems to me that a major concern here for a notability standard is to prevent the self-promotion of organizations who have a strong interest in self-promotion. This seems reasonable to me. But some organizations do not have a strong interest in self-promotion and we really need not be too concerned about an article here promoting that organization. This is what I am trying to get at in my phrasing "special interest organizations" and "professional organizations" but probably there is a better way to phrase it. I sure welcome suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been to annual meetings of scientific/technical societies, where scholars present papers, and people renew acquaintances and chase jobs. These rarely get press coverage unless someone presents a controversial paper which draws protesters. Yet they are well known to scholars or people in the field. Should there be inherent notability for national or international societies devoted to the advancement of learning? Or should there be a requirement for secondary sources or other indices of encyclopedic notability? Phi Beta Kappa has references in its article. I note that there was some discussion and edit warring regarding a tag placed on the article Society for Latin American Studies noting that it did not cite any references or sources, when it had an external link to its own website, and finally regarding the {{primarysources}} tag. What sources exist for citations to show that a professional or learned society is notable? Is it sufficient that their own website, or their own publiser, or their own journal state that they are important in their intellectual or professional realm? Most professional and technical publicatins are behind paywall, but those with a university affiliation could run down any sources which somehow evaluate organizations of this type. Another example of a professional society sourced only to its website is Association of Art Museum Curators, yet it has 600 members from 200 institutions[3]. The Psychonomic Society has 2500 members, has been in existence to 49 years, and publishes 6 refereed journals, but its only references are from its own publication. Edison (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now the SLAS article has only two references, one from the publisher of its journal (the only subscriptions are the ones for libraries or the free one that comes with society membership, so it is virtually in-house) and one from J-stor, for the same pub (and most academic organizations have publications, and most of those publications are covered by J-stor) ... this is not a lot. By comparison there are books published by academic presses that have information on the history or internal politice of the American Anthropological Association. So sometimes there are the kinds of secondary sources we prefer for most articles, but often there are not. I think Edison's example of the AAMC is a good one - I consider it to be notable on its face, whether its only source is its website or not. In these cases, where the organization has a natural constituency and little interest in promotion - or where the primary user of the website is people who are already members of the organization - I have found that their own website is the best source for information on the organization and a reliable source. I just feel the policy should have some guidelines on this. I am sure we all agree that we don't want Wikipedia abused, for example used to promote an organization ... and obviously having a website in and of itself cannot be enough, given how easy it is to create a website. Maybe we can say something about the age or size of the organization, but it seems to me that we can also talk about a kind of organization, specifically professional organizations, that do not need lots of citations. But the policy has to provide clear guidance on how to recognize legitimate professional organizations and distinguish them from fronts for a few guys who just want to publicize their views on the web. I would like to think that when it comes to AAA, SLAS, or AAMC one can tell just by looking at the website, but we cannot take this for granted. What language can we put into this policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about the verifiability issue. Anyone could start an "American Association for Architrave Studies" , (or any other nonexistent organization) with a list of officers, and a description of a journal, and have an article. I have seen hoax articles about towns, politicians, and even wars, which on the face seemed plausible. It could be shown to be a probable hoax, given an investment of time to find that no library holds the journal, but it is hard to prove a negative. WP:V has placed the burden on verifiability on the article creator or the supporters of the article. If a learned society is a constituent society of a national or international body of learned societies, that would be one checkoff or point of verification. Membership (for the US at least) in the American Council of Learned Societies [4] would be a point for verifying an American humanities-related organization,such as the AAMC mentioned above) but clearly this would be the tiniest fraction of such organizations. The Scholarly Societies Project of the University of Waterloo Library is a larger listing of such societies, and if it is regarded as a reliable source would be a verification that a society was not just something made up in school one day. Google Scholar might be a source of information. It has a stated policy for inclusion, and brief entries for SLAS [5] and the Psychonomic Society [6] but not for the "Association of Art Museum Curators." What references would a librarian use to determine the standing of a learned society? At Questia I see "International Encyclopedia of Learned Societies and Academies" by Joseph C. Kiger; Greenwood Press, 1993. 377 pgs, which might be a source (although 15 years old) for 100 societies in 50 countries outside the U.S. [7]. Kiger's "Research Institutions and Learned Societies" (1982) covers societies inside the US. Is there a reliable book/site more up to date and more comprehensive? Edison (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: The statement about local organizations implies nothing about non-local organizations. If you want to evaluate a non-local organization, then look at the advice for non-local organizations: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the abstract, I take WP:V very seriously. And I share Edison's concerns. But I do not think the policy was written with these kinds of organizations in mind. Most articles we have are on topics like Jesus and evolution and our policies were mostly written based on wisdom accumulated while working on those articles. In some cases - like BLP - our standards are harsher than our standards for other articles. It seems reasonable to wonder if there is also a class of articles where the standards could be looser. I appreciate Edison's listing of third-party resources - why not put these into the article? I think Edison's points are very helpful but I do not think this closes the discussion of the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with SLR. There are scholarly organizations that while notable are highly specialized and so may lack the widespread coverage of businesses. We could always create a sub-clause specifically for scholarly societies. However we need to be careful with this as it could be gamed. As far as sourcing goes this list isn't comprehensive (and is 2 yeasr out of date - I think) but scholarly-societies.org is looked after by the University of Waterloo library--Cailil ^talk 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, in the context of scientific meeting,with the general feeling being that a series of national or international meetings might well be notable, on the same basis as a journal is, but not an individual academic meeting except in rare circumstances. I think that verifying the activities of almost any national organization can be done, except if people try to wikilawyer over the degree of independence of the sources or the extent of the discussion of them. It's not a question of the policy for V, but the standards for the guidelines of RS and of N. The source for associations of all sorts that is standard in libraries is Encyclopedia of Associations, published by the standard international reference publisher Gale, available on print or online, revised periodically. It excludes local organizations, and is selective. It's referred to as the standard in all the textbooks of reference work and library guides. I would accept it, (but not the Greenwood book, as the quality of their publications is extremely variable--most of them are not in the least selective.). First time I heard that Google Scholar had a stated consistent policy for anything at all; Edison, do you have a reference for that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Public companies continued

Itemirus wrote above:

shall we make a list of worldwide notable companies and see what's missing from the encyclopedia or we wait and see what comes around?

UnitedStatesian and I suggested refinements to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations. Rossami cautioned that the requested articles lists are "less bad" than specific lists of quoted companies, and "Once they were moved out of the articlespace, the vandalism fell off - but that isolation created it's own problems."

I for one, and perhaps only one, would enjoy picking off one or two articles a month from a prioritised list, but I don't find the current list of requested articles inspiring. I enjoy researching notable companies I have never heard of, like Kagome Co., Ltd..

Rossami: what were the problems created by isolation?

So by all means, Itemirus, I would encourage you to create a prioritised list of red links (not in article space) but bear in mind that you and I may be the only ones that use it.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems of isolation of the lists. 1) They got ignored. Being isolated, they were less visible and often sat unattended for a very long time. 2) The person who set up the list sometimes had an agenda. 3) Wikiprojects tend to push people into tighter quarters than other areas of the project. When feathers get inevitably get ruffled and participants walk away, the wikiproject loses critical mass.
All in all, I still consider those problems less than the problems we had with the lists in the article space. If the current list of requested articles is uninspiring to you (because it certainly is to me too), why not scrap it and start over? Rossami (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On professional/academic sub-organizations

The existing guidelines seem insufficient for deciding whether to include significant sub-organizations, and by this I don't mean regional chapters, but sub-organization with a special focus. A prime example in computing are ACM SIGs. An example in medicine is SHSMD, part of AHA. I'm tempted to think that these should be included. Proposed criteria:

• significant number of member (say > 1000), and
• their own publications and/or conferences (perhaps more than 3 say)

What do you think? VG ☎ 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. What matters is the organization's notability, as in how much notice it received. A six-member organization that's in the headlines all the time gets an article; a thousand-member organization that does nothing of any interest to the average person gets no article. That they send out a quarterly newsletter and have an annual meeting is of no importance whatsoever.

As for the two specific examples you mention, I see no reason why they can't be adequately described in the article on the parent organization. ACM SIGs is already part of the ACM article, and SHSMD is up for AfD, which will probably result in it being merged to AHA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The main ACM page only has a list of SIGs. You could add all the SIG details to the main ACM page, but it would get very long... VG ☎ 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the individual SIGs sufficiently important that we actually need more than a list? For that matter, do we even need the list? Would it be sufficient -- for the purpose of having an encyclopedia article on the subject -- just to have a paragraph or two about the SIGs in general, followed by a footnote that links to a list of the SIGs at ACM's own website?

The bottom line for me is that I don't think you've demonstrated that there's a problem with the advice we give on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're so convinced the guidelines are okay, and that the SIG pages are superfluous, put your money where your mouth is: go ahead and prod all the SIGs. See you at the AfD. VG ☎ 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indy Record label

According to "Primary criteria" a business would be Notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. I found a Wikipedia article for an indy record label, Mo-Da-Mu. The article has (had) been tagged since October 2006 with "This article does not cite any references or sources." I added the "prod" tag today citing the "Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria" guidelines, and also restated the fact little work had been done since 2006. The tag was almost instantly removed (Along with the October 2006 tag) because "an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable". Two citations were added - a link the bands bio and a link to an "online history" of the band that states "Info provided by: www.divineindustries.com", which is the bands management - who also used to run the label in question. (Management Roster:54-40). Taken on it's own this article does not seem strong enough for any Wikipedia article - left un-cited for 2 years and in a stub form. Am I missing something in how an Indy record label, as an organization and/or company, should be considered for notability? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If they can't provide independent, third-party reliable sources, then you should have an easy time at WP:AFD with the article (which is your next step). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-Commercial Organizations

I realize this topic has had considerable attention in the past, but the criteria seem to be to be insufficient to deal with the world. The main criterion is an organization whose "activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent". That would mean that an organization that does any international work whose works are verified is deemed to be notable. In other words, "international" scope of activities is being used as a proxy for "significant coverage. That just doesn't make sense.

Also, it would be useful to have guidance about government-related organizations--are they automatically notable, or do they need "significant coverage". Do the normal rules for splitting apply to sub-agencies or other subdivisions, or shuold they differ? For example, the NTIA has its own page--does that make sense, or should information about it be included in United States Department of Commerce? And its sub-agency, the Office of Spectrum Management, does not have its own article--should it? What about UN departments and agencies? Are they automatically notable, or do they need to receive "significant coverage"?

Bongomatic 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The verified by sources that are reliable and independent part is where were get the "significant coverage" aspect.

The point behind having the national/international limitation is that local non-profit organizations are often unusually adept at getting local and regional media coverage, and we don't really want an article on each of the half-million active non-profit organizations just in the U.S. (There's another half-million or so that are inactive.)

I'm not sure that we need very many special rules for either charities or government agencies. Either they've gotten significant coverage and affect a lot of people (so we want an article), or they aren't and they don't (so we don't). No organization is inherently notable. All organizations are notable only to the extent that we can find significant coverage by third-party, independent reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I agreed, but under the current definition, the criterion that the source "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" does not apply if the organization has an international component. Bongomatic 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't read it that way either. See the very next sentence after the clause you're quoting which reads "In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." Being international in scale does not excuse the subject from the requirement to be independently and reliably sourcable.
I also have to disagree with your interpretation of the phrase "international in scale" as "doing international work". The Red Cross is international in scale. They have major operations around the globe in all areas of their activities. That's a far cry from my local church sending a mission team to build a house in Guatemala (which would be an example of international "work"). If anyone is interpreting "international in scale" that loosely, we need to correct the misunderstanding. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Bongo's understanding, but in an effort to eliminate even the possibility of confusion, I'll try a re-write on that paragraph. Let me know what you all think of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--this is an improvement, but I'd like to see more clarification of the meaning of "national or international in scale". Wanna try? Bongomatic 03:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a live dispute over this clause, or is this just a hypothetical "maybe we should eliminate editor judgment by defining everything in sight" question?

What do you think the common-sense meaning of the phrase is? This isn't a legal document; if a term is not defined, you can assume that its everyday meaning is the relevant one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes now mean that no organisation is notable unless they are national or international. That's wrong. There are many organisations that are not national or international that are notable under WP:N. You should just fix what international means, ie. not just that you trade internationally or nationally, but that you are recognised internationally.Assize (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you name one non-profit organization that is both recognized internationally and also could not be considered national or international in scale? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Philharmonic, like most major symphony orchestras, is a non-profit. They perform nationally and internationally, but... There are infamous local groups like the Branch Davidians that definitely meet the notability criteria without having international operations. SDY (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, NYP is "international in scale" because it recruits players from all around the world and performs (and is reported in media) internationally. It appears that Branch Davidian (the organization) could attempt a claim at being "national in scale" (competing parts of the organization were in different states). The Waco Siege, of course, was an event, and thus these rules aren't relevant for that article.

Additionally, both of these also clearly meet (or exceed) the existing rule for local organizations: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

←These observations--while true--do not explain what makes the organizations suitable as subjects for Wikipedia articles. Nor do they square with what I believe is the consensus view on the conventional meanings of "international scale" or "national scale". Bongomatic 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Local coverage

I just wanted to say that

"Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

is a good suggestion. A flat prohibition often isn't nearly as effective as suggesting an acceptable compromise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

F.F. Ertl III, Inc. Is it "notable"?

I am new to editing Wikipedia and have a quick question about the notability requirements. F.F. Ertl III, Inc. is a small manufacturer of die-cast collectibles and does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I cannot find any articles mentioning them in any newspapers, but a quick Google search reveals several company profiles on third-party websites such as bizjournals.com. Does this qualify as notable?

For what it's worth, the company's two brands (Die-Cast Promotions and Highway 61) have a good reputation among die-cast collectors and many if not most involved in the hobby are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of these brands. You can verify this for yourself on various Internet message boards, but I cannot seem to find an answer to whether or not Internet message boards meet the requirements for "verifiable".

If all else fails, there is currently an encyclopedia of die-cast replica brands in national publication that I intend to acquire in the future, and I would assume that inclusion in such an encyclopedia would qualify a company as "notable".

Thank you for your time,
Robert

Jedimario (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably does not meet the notability guideline. The company profiles are likely a rehash of what the company published in a government filing or on its website. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

you should explore whether there are articles about them in specialized magazines, print or online., but not blogs. DGG (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of a US 501c3

In relation to United States Justice Foundation prod. The organization has been an amicus curiae in several lawsuits heard by the Ninth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. (refs in article). Does being an amicus curiae at the national level create notability? This has probably been addressed somewhere already, but not easy to find, so input requested, or an opinion that the question should be posted at a noticeboard. Novickas (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As the {{prod}} nominator for the above-mentioned article, you can probably guess my views on this. But it seems uncontroversial that being an amicus curiae--even if subsequently quoted or covered in detail in the opinion--is the opposite of being covered in a source independent of the subject, since the organization itself determines whether to file an amicus brief and determines the contents of such a brief if it files one. Bongomatic 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it does get significant 3rd-party coverage; 94 Google book hits [8]; 32 hits from ""United States Justice Foundation" site:.edu" [9]. It's harder to find sources from mainstream newspapers, they're mixed up with all the other Google hits, altho there's four from the LA Times [10] This is a question as to whether an org's AC presence in Supreme Court cases creates notability in and of itself. Novickas (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was an answer ("no") only to your question as to whether filing an amicus brief makes an organization notable, not to any more general question as to the notability of the United States Justice Foundation. Bongomatic 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in and of itself, I don't believe that an amicus curiae confers notability. It's essentially self-published, for one thing. But it sounds like you've got a lead on several other possible ways to demonstrate notability. Occasionally, orgs will list their publicity efforts on their website; don't forget to see if they have a "news stories about us" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, all. Sorry to say, the prod doesn't bother me enough to work harder on the article...I think it would survive AFD. Was mostly curiousity about the AC issue. Novickas (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Airlines/Air taxis in Alaska

Due to some disagreement at AfD about exactly where the bar is for micro-airlines, I am attempting to jump-start an old discussion here to determine if a specific standard needs to be developed for these organizations. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where/How to list offices of airlines that are not headquarters

A user and I disagreed over whether offices of airlines that are not headquarters should be listed in articles of small cities (i.e. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) and business districts (i.e. Center City Philadelphia) - See User_talk:HkCaGu#Airport_offices

Many airlines operate offices in other cities in other countries - I feel that articles of neighborhoods and small cities should mention the airline operations in the "Economy" section as the airlines contribute tax revenue and employ area residents. The other user feels that this is too directory-like and is not particularly notable to the small cities and neighborhoods. What do you guys think? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is a guideline for determining whether an organization is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. If an airline satisfies the guideline then, by all means, write an article about the airline. Your question about article content is not answered by notability guidelines. Rather, it should be considered in terms of WP:IINFO. There is relevant guidance in an essay on connective trivia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble, did you read the linked discussion? They're trying to create a rule that all airlines are "inherently notable" if (as I understand it) they meet this or that United States government regulation. The net result will be that if an airline listed with X government agency, it's "notable" and gets its own article, even if you can't find a single independent reliable source to base the article on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did: Notwithstanding that the thread begins with the presumption that airlines are inherently notable, that was not the question. The question there, and in this thread, was whether to list them in an article about a municipality or an area in which they have offices or operations. Notability, presumed or otherwise, was being used to justify doing so.

The question was not about notability criteria for creating articles, but use of notability for other purposes. It can be appropriate to mention non-notable things in an article about a notable subject if they are relevant and significant to that subject; and it can be inappropriate to list an example-farm of notable things that are only tangentially or trivially relevant to the subject. I believe my response was entirely on-point: notability is not the issue, it is a distraction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? As far as I know there is no consensus for that suggestion and it is not being actively pursued. The proposal that appears like it could get consensus is that, if an airline does not have a code, it is probably not going to be notable. The wording does not attempt to force notability on any airline. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that we have multiple conversations on the same subject area. The discussion I refer to is on a subpage of "List of airlines in Alaska". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion linked in the opening paragraph of this thread. The confusion is understandable because the question does not relate to the main purpose of this forum. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of residential colleges

A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of editors of this policy would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes at Meadow Woods

Official Web site of Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes in Meadow Woods, Orlando, Florida. Information for residents and visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsvirginsi (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Octagon Press Ltd

User:RadioFan flagged the article Octagon Press Ltd for lack of notability. The difficulty I'm having, which you'll see immediately if you have a look at the article now it's been extended, is that hardly anybody has said anything significant about the publisher itself, but the company's founder, authors and products have received extensive coverage and are notable. Folk talk about authors and books but often only mention publishers in passing, especially if the company is not quoted on the stock exchange.

The problem is that the letter of the wikipedia law rules out such inheritence. Is the wikipedia policy too inflexible here? Ideas most welcome. Thanks Esowteric (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources say that the Lotus Elan is a great car and the Lotus Elite is a great car, then we should be able to derive from that the fact that Lotus manufacture great cars, though a direct statement to this effect would be better. Wikipedia shouldn't favour those, often larger, companies who have worked on bringing their brand name to the public's attention.

Perhaps the wording might be changed to include "... or, in the case of organizations and companies with several or many of their own products or services [where merging, etc is not a suitable option], if these have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources showing the notability of those goods and services ..." or somesuch? Esowteric (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if there's very little published about the company, then the company simply should not be the subject of an article: Notability is not inherited. Instead, we'd merge that information to an article about a notable subject, such as the founder of the company. (If the founder is notable, and the company is an important part of the founder's life, then surely a section on the company would not be out of place in the biography.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of not inherited. Not inherited means that although the company may be notability, those connected with it are not necessarily, though it has been the general practice that presidents and ceos of notable companies are notable. Companies are notable though such things as significant products and market share. The notability of multiple significant products implies notability of the company producing it. DGG (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I must have been unclear: If a person is notable, then it does not follow that every company that this person works for, or has worked for, becomes notable because of the mere fact that they employed a notable person.

Even if a company has 100% market share, and a ground-breaking product, it is simply not possible to write an appropriately neutral article when there are no reliable sources from which to draw information and determine balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for some feedback. Please help.

THRI is a Florida not-for-profit organization that promotes basic human rights. T.H.R.I. stands for The Human Rights Initiative. The corporation exists to provide homeless men, women, and children with housing, food, clothing, education, and health care.

T.H.R.I.'s mission is to radically transform the city—as well as the surrounding area—by providing direct aid to homeless members of the community.

T.H.R.I., Inc. was co-founded by Jonathon Ballard and Ryan Ross to help re-new the tri-country region in Florida.

---

Board of Directors President_Jonathon Ballard Vice President_Ryan McInerney Committee Chair_Ryan Ross Treasurer_Anthony Burgos

Secretary_Stephanie Ross

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want to start an article? Then I suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and finding several good news stories about the organization. If you have a a handful of reliable sources about the organization, then you don't need permission here to start the article. (If no one has written about the organization [except itself], then it does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia -- you'll have to wait until it has received significant attention from the media.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I've moved a bunch of comments to the archive, but have not updated the "table of contents". I'm not sure that it's actually that useful. I wonder if it could be replaced with an archive search instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Quantitative criteria to facilitate bot additions

If a company or organization is large enough, it significantly affects the lives of a large enough percentage of the world's people to be notable. In order that bots can detect and add missing articles, I suggest that we set some thresholds above which a company or organization is automatically notable. How about any one of the following?

• Accounts for at least 0.1% of the total market capitalization of a stock exchange, for at least 30 calendar days continuously, including at least 20 trading days.
• Production and added value in any one country equal to the greater of 0.01% of any one country's GDP or 10,000 times its per-capita GDP.
• Accounts for at least 5% of any one country's imports, exports or domestic consumer sales in any calendar year.
• Accounts for at least 0.01% of all international trade in any calendar year.
• Production or added value accounting for at least 0.01% of the world's GDP.
• The largest for-profit employer, or the largest NGO employer, in a country, city, state or province with a population of at least 5,000,000.
• Employees in any one country equal to the greater of 5,000 or 0.1% of that country's population.

NeonMerlin 06:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• No.
  It seems likely that all, or very nearly all, such companies will happen to be notable, but articles must have references. Whether or not a company is notable depends entirely on the reliable sources, not on actual achievements. If a company could somehow manage to have 5,000 employees and never have been written up in a newspaper -- a circumstance that I believe to be, at most, "exceedingly rare" -- then that company is not notable, because it has received no notice in the media. (Frankly, companies are such publicity seekers that if you can't find two reliable sources for a company with 5,000 employees, then you're probably not trying very hard.)
  Furthermore, in wikiland, these thresholds end up cutting both ways: if we say that ≥5,000 employees is "automatically notable", then it will be misinterpreted as "≤5,000 is "automatically non-notable".
  Finally, some of your criteria are untenable. 0.1% of the population of tiny Niue requires just 1.4 employees; every single business in the country would become "notable" under that requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• All public companies in the US have reliable sources available. The objection doesn't apply there. I'm not sure of other countries. As for notability , this proposal is (correctly imho) advocated rejecting the GNG with respect to companies, and we could perfectly well do that if we wanted to, and I think we should. Partly this is due to the difficulty of deciding whether a source on a company is derived from PR or not. There are very few business sources that are completely free from this, & so the presence of what looks like an article may not be meaningful, & it can be very difficult to tell. After all it is actual business achievement that is notable. The GNG is just a handy tool--it need not apply if we do not want it to: it is not policy. As for what the cutoff ought to be, I;d agree with WhatamIdoing that in practice a great many below this line will be notable--perhaps by an at least an order of magnitude on most of the criteria. (for largest employer, I'd use 1 of the 10 largest in a community of over 50,000, 3 full orders of magnitude. For number of employees, it would depend on the business and the country. In particular, i think the companies with the largest market share in any line in any country are notable. I'd accept 5% share for a major industry, 25% for anything at all. But perhaps you are proposing conditions where a bot can safely add, in which case it should be separate for notability. You could certainly add all these, but it would be even better if you could get a bot to look for references. DGG (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's still not clear to me whether the bot would be providing sources. Articles about businesses that have no refs tend to get deleted, and WP:CORP can't authorize ignoring WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The primary notability criterion was first formulated here. Removing it here is both historically wrong and a bad idea. Criteria that talk in terms of percentage industry shares, number of employees, and other arbitrary figures, are wrongheaded, and have shown to be wrongheaded time and again in the archives of this discussion page. They lead to business directories. That the business directories that you allude to as reliable sources exist, covering all public companies in the U.S., is indeed the reason that we have these notability criteria, which incorporate our mission not to be a business directory, in the first place. Notability is not verifiability. These criteria, particular the primary criterion, are aimed squarely at preventing us from becoming a business directory, and that includes not becoming a business directory of "all businesses with more than X employees" or of "all businesses with Y% market share at some random point in time". Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and that is why the PNC specifies multiple, independent, reliable published works, covering the subject in depth by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• This proposal has been made frequently before. I'm sure it was made in good-faith but it should be rejected for the same reasons we rejected it before. Those all sound like reasonable standards but everytime we push it, we keep finding exceptions and holes - organizations that pass the arbitrary threshold but for whatever reason have no reliable, independent sources. (Self-published material and trivial local news coverage, of course, do not count.) Rossami (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to promote a wine guide essay to a guideline

Per the instructions on WP:GUIDE, I propose that the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide be promoted from essay to guideline, with WP:CORP as its parent.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a wine guide#Proposal to promote from essay to guideline. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shopping malls

What makes a shopping mall notable? Is every single blue listed article at List of shopping malls in the Philippines notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers does not provide any help. From past AfD discussions anything over about 750,000 sqft gets kept. Anything in Australia gets a ton of support to keep and size does not enter into the picture. So to answer your question, not everything in that article needs a link, at least in my opinion. Also, the stores should not be classified as a center as happens in at least one case. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a shopping mall should have significance for its architecture or to have been the first in some significant innovation in the realm of retailing before it is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The vast majority of our "shopping mall" pages are either directories of the stores in them or non-notable descriptions of "the place I hang out a lot". There are also a few included because of some alleged controversy either at or over the building of (or destruction of) the mall - almost all of which fail WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion. Malls do not, by themselves, generate significant revenue - the revenue is attributable to the tenant stores. As such, the mall itself has far less impact on the local community than is generally argued during deletion debates. If the mall did not exist, the stores would still have a presence either stand-alone or in shopping plazas.
Having said that, my position is a clear minority opinion so far. Like the debate over schools, the partisan support for 'my local mall' has prevented the community from reaching a coherent policy on malls in general. Rossami (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your view lacks community support. I think the problem is that so far no one has found the right set of words to exclude most of the junk that we can get a consensus for a guideline. Since it has been a while, do you want to write a new proposal for a guideline so that we can see if there is a consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A pornographic proposal

The looseness of the criteria stated herein, and the constant Wikilawyering it seems to engender, has been a source of some frustration to me. I continue to think it ought to be tightened up.

Then, last night, as I drifted off to sleep, and thought about the things I usually think about when drifting off to sleep, inspiration struck. We've had a fairly specific and strict notability policy specifically for porn stars, likewise engendered of wikilawyering, and the fact that a porn star by definition is being substantially covered (or rather uncovered) by independent media, so the general notability policy is not going to be strict enough. The career of a porn star is necessarily relatively brief and ephemeral. It was decided that the general notability policy was not enough.

Likewise, the current guideline is not quite good enough to exclude ephemeral consulting and investment firms with little physical presence or historic resonance; we should only cover those businesses that are well known and of interest to the general public. Now, by way of example, the porn star criteria currently require that a subject:

1. Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards.
2. Has received award nominations in multiple years.
3. Is a Playboy Playmate.
4. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
5. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

I would propose using this as a model for new criteria for business notability.

A business is presumed to be notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Business and industry awards.
2. Has received award nominations in multiple years.
3. Is both publicly traded and listed on a major stock market index.
4. Has made unique contributions to an important technical or industrial field that resulted in a new, physical, non-software invention that is sold to the general public (as opposed to other businesses).
5. Has been featured multiple times, by substantive coverage, in notable mainstream, general-interest, or consumer review media. (ADD - maybe as an endnote: "Substantive coverage" here means an independent, freestanding story whose chief subject is the business. Quotations from business personnel as sources do not count unless the business is also the chief subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.)
6. Has been associated with a news event with sufficient historical significance to warrant an encyclopedia article.

I think this would be somewhat clearer and help deal with spam better. What say you? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "publicly traded" criterion has been proposed many times before. I remain uncomfortable with that proposal for all the same reasons as before.
Excluding that one, it would seem that your criterion 5 ("has been featured multiple times") is a rephrasing of the current standard. That, I think, makes the others redundant. What company would verifiably meet any of the other criterion without already meeting the 'multiple non-trivial articles' standard?
Or do you mean something more restrictive in your wording for #5? Rossami (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifying "mainstream, general-interest, or consumer review media" is intended to be somewhat more restrictive, intending to curb the Argument from Minor Trade and PR Publications and Sites that Nobody Outside the Business Has Heard Of. The idea is to limit coverage mostly to brands that are recognized outside the field, and by the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Still hesitant over the "publicly traded" criterion even with your clarification about the index. I like the rest, though. Ony other opinions out there? Rossami (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd say "for all the usual reasons", but that probably wouldn't be helpful. It's not a bad effort, but rules 1 through 4 don't address a significant proportion of organizations. For example, the 'publicly traded' rule would, in one fell swoop, de-legitimize every article about government agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations, from United Nations to Wikimedia Foundation. If these are meant to be separate criteria (meet any one out of six), then it's unnecessary, because no one has ever identified a business that meets any of the criteria 1 through 4 without simultaneously meeting criteria 5.
  Rule 6 is an unwarranted and dramatic expansion of this standard, since the manufacturer of some trivial supply to a major disaster relief effort can claim to be "associated with" an important news event by dint of producing a single "hometown heroes" piece from the local newspaper.
  Finally, rule 5, for which I have some sympathy, is also an expansion of the existing guideline. We're requiring at least regional media coverage; the proposed rule would permit inclusion of organizations on the basis of two stories in the same small-town newspaper (which is a "mainstream" and "general interest" media outlet). Being featured in Red Herring, a special interest magazine, is a far better indication of notability than a story in a tiny newspaper. Could I suggest that you read the existing "primary criteria" section? I believe that it already addresses your concerns. If it doesn't, I'd be happy to see an example of an organization or business article that qualifies under the existing rules but wouldn't under yours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Now, first, it is my understanding that notability guidelines work with OR logic instead of AND unless it says different; an organization that met any one of the guidelines passes. I did not propose automatic notability for all publicly traded organizations, only for all businesses that are in major stock market indexes like the Dow Jones 500, which may be unnecessary because all such businesses probably get in by different routes anyways.
  
  "Red Herring", to me, is a general interest business publication, mostly because its readership is not confined to any one industry or economic sector.
  
  Would the clarification of "substantive / substantial" coverage be a welcome addition to the policy? That, perhaps, would address one of the major issues that comes up repeatedly, and that text seems to have some support here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that established editors actually have trouble interpreting that term, but the integration of something like your text:

  Quotations from business personnel as sources do not count unless the business is also the chief subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.)

  to the "Works carrying merely trivial coverage" bullet point under the primary criteria might be helpful.
  We don't actually require an entire article or book that is solely dedicated to a given organization; an informative section of an article is usually enough (e.g., an article about the top organizations in a field is better than a short puff piece in your hometown newspaper). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Commercial products

I noticed this discussion (see question 8) of the number of pages on individual cell phones and related products, and it makes me wonder: should there be a guideline on notability for individual commercial products? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional organizations and companies

Can we have this policy explicitly state that it applies to fictional organizations and companies as well? I assume that this policy can be used for fictional entities. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) would be more appropriate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All High Schools Notable? GUIDELINE DEBATE

The following text was inserted to WP:ORG at 20:57 December 9, and was reverted at 23:01, pending resolution of the debate which immediately follows.

“ As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools which do get merged are generally redirected to the school district which operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere). Classrooms, lessons, and classes are not notable. Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field (e.g., University of Chicago Department of Economics), or produced a number of notable graduates (USC School of Cinematic Arts, Oxford PPE). The notability of student unions may vary between different countries and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor. (Refer to WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life for specifics). ”

Over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Creek_High_School, editors are arguing that it is "overall community consensus that high school pages should be kept as they generally have verifiable and notable content, most specifically related to sports teams." I'd like to verify if this is true. If it is, shouldn't that be included in WP:ORG so more editors don't interpret the standard too narrowly? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In general high schools are considered notable per Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)This was not resolved at the extended discussions over at WP:SCHOOLS. While there was a lot of support for this, conversely there was reasonable opposition to this allowing all high schools to have articles. So we have kind of settled into a truce. The high schools generally are accepted for keeping articles and lower grade schools are not, unless they present a special case for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've updated Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations to reflect what I've learned about the consensus. Hopefully this will reduce the number of high schools being nominated. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability (schools) is a failed proposal, and therefore has less than zero weight in an argument like this.

I think that the new section might have been adequately handled with a See also to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. The #Companies section would also be worth pointing readers to. Since 'common outcomes' isn't really our advice/best practice/recommendation, it may not be entirely appropriate to place it in this guideline.

A common outcome reflects a de facto consensus, especially when this common outcome is cited by the editors as justification for an AfD decision, as was done at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Creek_High_School. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why there's any question about it: almost every high school can produce substantial local newspaper articles about its creation, construction of buildings, hiring of administrators, current budget, and student achievements; they are all named in state-wide, regional, and/or national reports; and nearly all of them receive at least regional media coverage for sports and other extracurricular activities. Once you meet WP:GNG, there's no need to discuss anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And once they meet WP:GNG they get an article, so why do they need a special exemption before then? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing about not making changes based on a failed proposal. I'll also point out that there may be a need to be careful about some local news coverage as really satisfying the GNG requirement that secondary sources be truly independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes were not made based on a failed proposal. Changes were made based on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. That represents a clear guideline. This all started because I AfD'd a high school that didn't seem notable under current WP:ORG guidelines, and in the debated I was directed to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. The early consensus was a unanimous keep based on the aforementioned article (i.e. all high schools should be kept), and the admin who closed it thanked me for updating WP:ORG. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As a point of fact, WP:OUTCOMES is not a guideline. It's data, not advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not really about making a special exemption. It's about making guidelines clearer so that the implications of WP:GNG (as the community interprets it) are fully understood by the wider community. Newer editors (note: this is not directed at the AfD nominator that sparked this discussion) are less likely to understand how policies and guidelines intertwine to come to what the community has determined is consensus for "keep," so incorporating something like this in here is likely to improve the quality of nominations at AfD without disrupting consensus. It doesn't seem like there's much push-back saying "high schools should be deleted"; most of it seems to be directed at fear of changing this guideline. If it doesn't conflict with the community consensus, then I don't really see a valid objection against an update. --Shirik (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• No Nothing is notable by default and subjects must earn their notability. It is generally very easy for high schools to do that, but it is not assured. Juvenile detention centers oftentimes have nonnotable high schools within them. Small high schools in remote countries also would lack the coverage and general notability needed for an article. A link to the common outcomes section on high schools would be appropriate, as that represents consensus, but there is no firm guideline or policy which states that all high schools are notable and this reasoning is looked down upon per WP:NOTINHERITED. ThemFromSpace 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that that some things ARE notable by default, for example, assassins of political figures, or countries in the world. I think the biggest argument that consensus exists to keep high schools is the fact that thousands of high schools have their own articles on Wikipedia, and these articles have never been subject to an AfD nomination. See the category for high schools in Georgia. That's 282 schools in one state alone. I think there is a clear consensus, Wikipedia-wide, to keep high schools. If this is true, it should be reflected in WP:ORG so that editors don't continue to waste time nominating high schools only to have the nominations fail because there is an "invisible consensus," like the one I experienced. I mean really, if this edit to WP:ORG fails, someone should start a wikiproject just to nominate all the high schools for deletion. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason we have many articles on high schools is because many high schools are notable, but many doesn't mean all. It's an easy but dangerous leap to make when we conclude that because 90% of high schools are notable than we should keep all of them. Nominating all of the high school articles might remove a few that can't be verified, but the vast majority are notable per WP:N so this would be more destructive than constructive.ThemFromSpace 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I counted 6804 pages on high schools in the United States. There is no way that "many" of them are notable as per current WP:GNG and WP:ORG. However, if the only criteria for notability is verifiability in this case (which is not what WP:NOTABILITY says, and why I edited it), then almost all of them are notable. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that "high school" is much broader of a term than most people realise. Perhaps all accredited high schools in the United States are notable, but what about small organized classes of 12-18 year olds in Africa or India? Not all of them have the notability needed to write a verifiable article. I'm worried that editors could use this provision to accept articles about subjects which none of us has any idea what we're writing about. That would damage our ability to be a reliable encyclopedia in the field of high schools. ThemFromSpace 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "much broader" according to the wikipedia article on high schools (India and South Africa are both mentioned). And if it turned out that it was "much broader," we could easily change the notability guideline at that time. But for now, you've got editors (like me) reading WP:ORG and judging a particular U.S. high school not notable, then being told by the community "Actually, its notable. We just don't have that written on the WP:ORG page." To me, this issue is pretty simple: either U.S. High Schools are not notable (in and of themselves, without something else making them notable, like famous alumni) under current WP:ORG, and should be deleted, or they are notable in and of themselves, and this should be indicated on WP:ORG. I am not attached to which way we go on this, but I want something clear and less ambiguous than what happened yesterday. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a question of something being "notable by default". The general consensus comes from the fact that just about every high school has something notable about them (most often the best thing to point at is their sports teams) and thus, in general, high schools are going to stick around. We aren't really talking about something "defaulting to notable" here, we're just talking about something that happens to be consistently notable; this has held up pretty well so far within the community from what I have seen in the past. --Shirik (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pfaughhh! I'm horrified at the argument that having sports teams is what makes high schools notable. What of the many excellent high schools which have the peculiarly old-fashioned notion that schools are for education, not for fostering organized athletics, and therefore have few or none? Did Dr. Hutchins' abolition of the football team make the University of Chicago less notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It was merely a common example. My school in particular has horrible sports teams, so I am totally with you on this one. My argument was meant to point at something tangible, not to say "this is why for every school". In fact, I wouldn't be surprised (but do not have the expertise to assert) that schools outside of the US take sports much less seriously than those within the US, and we certainly still apply this common outcome to schools outside of the US, currently. --Shirik (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly ever a fan of "all X are notable". Some things tend to be more notable than others. It's unusual for a high school that exists to get deleted as the result of an AfD. Generally it's a lack of handy sources that lead to their nomination for deletion (see also: FUTON bias). As someone who has created a couple hundred high school articles, I'm still running across sources for them. I can find a half-dozen sources for any given high school in my regional location. I'm no good at the UK or Phillipines or El Salvador. Again, that's just bias- the sources are probably there, especially if they are centrally administered. Finally, it's unfortunate that WP:SCH hasn't achieved consensus. It's more a statement of the state of Wikipedia than anything. tedder (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There were multiple attempts to have various versions of WP:SCHOOLS accepted as a guideline which declared that all high schools are notable, and none were successful (rightly in my view), so doing an end-run around the consensus building process by just adding it to WP:ORG seems like poor form. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but AfDs about high schools were dominated by a group of editors pilling into each debate to declare the school notable, while a much larger number of editors cumulatively voted to delete, so the common outcomes of AfDs aren't a good guide. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS, being a failed policy, is not referenced in WP:ORG, so I didn't know it existed. I wasn't attempting an "end-run" as you put it. I think you should assume good faith. Rather than a declaration that "all high schools are notable," maybe a better way to say it is that "all high schools that are verifiable and have independent coverage are notable." Is that something that people can live with? It seems to fit WP:GNG. Look folks, this whole thing got started because an editor (me) took a look at WP:ORG, used the criteria in it to nominate an article for AfD, then got told that there was an unwritten general consensus to keep articles of that type, as evidenced by "common outcomes." This is unclear and needs to be elucidated for editors who come after. So I'm looking for some kind of statement that will clarify things for future editors, and thereby reduce the AfD load. If we can't agree that all high schools are notable, can we at least collaborate on the criteria for what makes a high school notable? It seems like a fair number of people in this discussion have clear ideas about that, so let's put our heads together folks. Please? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, the answer to which may shed some light on providing some guidance to future editors:

• Does a common outcome reflect a de facto general consensus? Why or why not?

If a common outcome does reflect a general consensus, then the original edit to WP:ORG should stand. If it does not reflect a general consensus, then NOTE: The common outcomes listed here do not constitute a de facto general consensus and should not be used as arguments for or against a deletion in an AfD debate should be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, in my opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The citing section already basically says that, but much like with Arguments to Avoid, that section is ignored and it is still claimed as policy or guideline in defending na article for AfD. As for my view, NO all high schools are NOT notable, and I'd argue MOST are not notable. Having your local paper cover you is not the same as significant coverage in THIRD party resources. My boyfriend's been mentioned in our local paper 2-3 times, that doesn't make him notable. A local paper would get run out of town if it didn't cover local news. And not all high schools are sports phenoms, most are not despite local coverage. Local being the key word there. High schools, like all topics on Wikipedia, should be made to follow WP:GNG and require the same coverage as any other subject. However, as has been noted above, right now, there is a false claimed consensus that because Common outcomes says they are notable, then all of them are even if all the coverage of them amounts to being able to verify it exists. Notable high schools would be schools like North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Poodunk High School is NOT notable by essence of existing, which clearly goes smack against WP:ITEXISTS (i.e the two conflict with each other even when they are used together). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you to hear this, but independent local newspapers are considered third-party sources. The school's own newspaper/website/newsletter is not, but commercial newspapers, from The Chicago Tribune (circulation 898,703 on Sundays) down to The Mulberry Advance (circulation 125), are definitely third-party sources. They meet all of WP:RS's requirements, from reputations for fact-checking through editorial control.

A school that receives absolutely no coverage outside its immediate locality might not be considered notable, but the problem is not the "third-party" nature of the local newspaper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "independent" may be key. For smaller markets, papers may just be reprinting press releases from the school. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but government-run schools in the US almost never issue press releases, especially in small towns and rural areas (=where the majority of schools are). They don't have the staff or expertise to manage this. The district office might issue a press release for something involving an election, a scandal, or a formal report about school performance (when required by law), but the school itself doesn't usually. (Go look at a few high school websites. I've not yet found one with a link to press releases.)

In small towns, for academic things, like which kids are being inducted into the honor society, they typically phone their contact at the local paper and provide basic information (e.g., "Jane Smith has won the Science Award") or invite the reporter to visit the school to interview the relevant people ("The science teacher is presenting the certificate at the end of the pep rally, probably about 2:45 p.m. today. Can you take a picture?"). For sporting events, they issue a free season pass to local sports reporters and beg the coach to grant interviews freely. The school doesn't normally write anything itself; independence is fiercely guarded by local newspapers. (Don't confuse "being kind to the schools your subscribers love" with "letting the school dictate your content": you can -- and many small newspapers do -- freely and independently choose to write nothing but positive stories.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good observations, thanks. I guess I just have a gut-level (read: OR) sense that the fierce guarding is not always so fierce. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

break

There is no such thing as inherent or automatic notability. Period. This insidious notion has lodged itself into the collective mindset here as a result of the perpetual and repeated confounding of "Wikipedia Notability" with the word "notability". They are not the same thing. Now, if the community wants to decide that Wikipedia should have an article on every high school for one reason or another, then so be it. While I do not favor the inclusion of every high school, I would at the very least be satisfied if the community would be more honest about the rationale and stop trying to pretend that high schools - or any subject, for that matter - is Inherently Notable. Shereth 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is always possible to find a WP:RS to establish WP:N of a subject, we should insist that editors do so, not defer to an easy way out. In the case of schools, the interested editors are very often local to the subject school and have ready access to such WP:RS. Let them take a walk to the school library and see what they can find there.LeadSongDog come howl 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there's no inherent notability. "All 'X' are notable" is a bad idea. Check; I got it. But that isn't helping me with the problem, the problem being that the current policy is unclear and needs to be edited so that future editors don't get tripped up like I did. I am clearly trying to get consensus on adding a guideline of some sort to elucidate things, and I feel like either nobody gets this, nobody cares, or nobody can be arsed to do some problem solving. Can I get some help, please? From anyone? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) As far as the solution, I'm fully agreed with AnmaFinotera. Notability comes from reliable substantial third party sourcing only, never from "It's notable because it's a...". You really want to help, edit any of the notability subguidelines to make that clear. If "every" high school receives some local coverage, that is not substantial. It is, instead, routine and trivial coverage. The concept of "It's notable because it's a (pro athlete|high school|named census location|insert other classification here)" is incorrect. Nothing is inherently notable. There are things for which every member of the set is notable (chemical elements, U.S. Presidents, countries), but that's not because of what they are. Rather, it is because every single element in each of those sets has ample reliable source information to write a full article. Even the less known members of each set (gadolinium, James Monroe, and Liechtenstein for some examples) will have plenty of reliable source coverage to write full articles. In my experience, that is not true of high schools. Many of them have only trivial coverage in local sources that largely repeat both one another and themselves (over several years, the coverage tends to remain exactly the same), and government reports that are not nontrivial coverage (they cover everything, by legal mandate!), so the articles wind up as permastubs with a few factoids, and that's all they really can be from the sourcing available. There are, of course, exceptions that are truly notable, but just like anything else, notability can be verified by reliable sources. The way we'd verify that is looking how much nontrivial, nonroutine and preferably nonlocal material has been written about the subject. The "all high schools are notable" meme has just become a self perpetuating chant, since everyone who watches the school canvassing list floods in as soon as a high school appears on it. It's not actually true, and just like with schools in general, eventually the cleanup will get done there. It took a while to even get started, we can wait to do the rest, but having the "all high schools are notable" bit enshrined somewhere will just make the process longer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for any special treatment of schools. WP:ORG already includes "educational institutions" in a list of orgs to get similar treatment. Let's keep a lid on WP:CREEP.LeadSongDog come howl 18:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Making something clearer without adding an instruction isn't instruction creep. Simply put, the current guidelines are unclear, and making them more clear will reduce the AfD load. So can I get some help? More people piling on to agree with what's already been said isn't helping. I'd like a consensus on how to solve the problem of WP:ORG being at odds with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. I've made some suggestions and asked some questions and I'm getting oblique responses. I'm not sure why. Or am I being obtuse? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ORG is an official guideline, whereas WP:OUTCOMES is, at most, a poorly policed reference page. Where discrepancies occur, the guideline would prevail in a strictly by-the-book argument. WP:OUTCOMES has utility as a descriptor of common practices but as it has no official weight it should never be used as an argument unto itself. It is similar to the issue with geographical locations; try nominating an obscure town for deletion and count how long it takes for people to shout "Keep, all places are inherently notable, SNOW close this discussion and flog the nominator!" - but boggle at the fact that not a one of them can dig up the official policy or guideline that says all places are "inherently notable". These concepts are deeply embedded into the psyche of the project and get repeated ad nauseum but stands in stark opposition to our existing notability guidelines. I have in the recent past suggested a compromise that would allow the GNG to remain intact and still allow location articles by creating a guideline/policy that would specifically exempt them from the GNG. That discussion generated a lot of noise but in the end died off to be archived with no result. The issue with schools is very similar and I suspect that the outcome will the the same : go with the status quo of parroting illogical arguments at AfD and cling to the backward notion that schools have some kind of magical inborn notability. Shereth 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you very much for your direct answer (Note to other editors: I still welcome additional answers from others, whether your perspective is the same as Shereth's or different). I have a couple follow-up questions. I understand from what you said that WP:OUTCOMES is descriptive in nature, and not proscriptive. It should not be used as an argument in and of itself. However, if 1000 AfD nominations failed because consensus on each of those 1000 articles was "All high schools should be kept, as all high schools are notable," wouldn't that be a consensus in and of itself)? And if so, wouldn't that be enough to change the WP:ORG guideline? I'm just trying all the possible arguments before I start to edit a policy page, so I can be prepared for the ensuing debate. Because I know someone is going to say this to me in debate, and I'd like to be armed with a good answer. Thanks again for your clear and cogent response. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are correct; policy and guideline itself should be descriptive rather than proscriptive, and common practices should be enshrined in policy. If 1000 nominations failed on the premise that "all schools are notable" that is a pretty damned solid indicator that a consensus has been found. The flaw in the argument is that it is a self-perpetuating meme : people argue "All schools are notable" not because that statement has any foundation in logic or fact, but simply because they heard it in a previous argument. Were it possible to follow the trail of breadcrumbs back in time one would eventually arrive at the failed WP:SCHOOLS policy. So yes, there is a consensus that schools get "a free pass", but there is still a consensus that automatic notability for schools does not exist. These kinds of paradoxes are the nature of the beast that is Wikipedia, where differing groups of people are the ones providing the consensus for differing policies and procedures, and yet another group of people forming consensus for how to interperet and enforce said policies. I have found efforts to make meaningful reform to solve the paradox between this kind of "implied notability" and existing guidelines to be a sisyphean task; I hate to sound cynical about it but that's how it's gone down in the past. Should you find success in getting the guideline to agree with both common practice and other guidelines/policies, then you, sir, I shall salute. Shereth 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. I have to admit, I honestly think that WP:SCHOOLS is (and has been) weighed in upon by editors that do not particularly care for the outcome. The interesting predicament is that, over at AfD, we have our "common outcome" of high schools being notable. This will stand up very often in arguments until something says otherwise, most likely. However, for some reason, it's not desired to actually write this into policy/guideline. The same people that are arguing against including it in the guideline are the same people that are not showing up at the AfD debate. So we have two groups of people: The AfD-watchers whom basically already have consensus, and overall Wikipedia which essentially does not. The problem comes in when we realize that, with or without this guideline change, the consensus at AfD is going to remain relatively the same without more input. The fun part is that I totally agree that if WP as a whole does not agree on this change, then it should not be included, but it seems right now that with or without the change, the outcome is going to be the same. What really needs to happen is, if we want to stop including high schools, then we need a solid debate on a verifiable school within an AfD that shows this "common outcome" is not all-encompassing.

That being said, I'd like to repeat I don't think there is an "implied notability" here. I think that it is extremely common to see notability, but that's it. The goal of this change was to reduce the number of "speedy keep" results in AfD due to high schools being nominated, which are speedily kept because (1) someone will indicate that high schools are generally considered notable and point out it is verifiable, (2) nominator will withdraw, (3) AfD will be closed due to unanimous keep. Until that pattern changes, there's either a problem with AfD, a problem with the guideline, or a problem with both. Personally, I'm willing to agree with either side of the debate, but I think it is very important to get the guideline in-sync with what's happening at AfD, lest we continue to waste our time with AfDs that won't pass. --Shirik (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In partial solution to this problem, I have completed a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES to make it clearly descriptive, rather than proscriptive, with such lines as:

“ This page is descriptive in nature, providing information on how AfD nominations are commonly resolved. WP:NOTABILITY is an official guideline, whereas this article is not. Where discrepancies occur, the guideline would prevail in a strictly by-the-book argument. This article has utility as a descriptor of common practices but as it has no official weight it should never be used as an argument unto itself. Keep/Delete per WP:OUTCOMES is not a valid argument in an AfD debate. ”

This edit was of course reverted, in contravention of the essay that was cited in doing that very revert. So I reverted it back (which stuck and is currently still the top page). Please go take a look and comment on the talk page under MAJOR OVERHAUL if you are interested in being part of the consensus that determines whether this edit stays or is reverted. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus has long been that all secondary schools that have verifiable information are notable. The reason being is that all such schools will have multiple reliable sources. To refuse to write this consensus down for "fear of what it might do" is just silly. Guidelines are descriptive. Current practice (consensus) is very clear. Therefore, the written guideline should reflect current practice. To make the guideline not follow practice just causes confusion and accomplishes nothing. Like all guidelines there may be rare exceptions to the general rule, but that is why they are called guidelines not policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here doesn't suggest this at all. Not a single editor so far has been comfortable with the idea of inherited notability, even with regard with schools. Consensus might be that most schools are notable, but not all such schools. Like I said above, I am very concerned whenever editors assert that all of any particular field is notable, and I believe this argumentation leads to poorly sourced articles of dubious merit. I also have to agree with Nick-D who states that AfD's about high-schools are dominated by a small group of editors asserting "inherited notability" while the larger community as a whole rejects this idea. ThemFromSpace 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus practice is indeed that all secondary schools are notable. Guidelines describe current practice. If people are using them prescriptively, they are misusing them. Furthermore, all notability guidelines are intended to guide decisions. Anyone who says that a guideline demands all X to kept is mistaken. For example, a lot of people complain that WP:ATH makes every professional athlete notable. While it is clearly common practice to keep all such articles, the people who say the guidelines demands it are mistaken. What the guideline actually says is "A person is generally notable if..." (my bold). Generally is not the same thing as always. Similarly, "all secondary schools are generally notable" would allow for rare exceptions. This is exactly what current practice is. Writing it down or not won't change practice, but it will reduce confusion from editors who are unaware of this unspoken guideline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But, ThaddeusB, if a high school did not have any sources supporting it -- or, say, the only source that indicates the existence of the school is the school's own website -- then you wouldn't consider that notable just because it was a secondary school, would you?

It seems to me that your statement "all secondary schools are notable" is entirely dependent on, and indeed is simply a short, if perhaps sloppy, way of expressing, the (normally valid) assumption that "all secondary schools will have many newspaper articles written about them".

But, if, say, you were considering one of the hundreds of "private high schools" in California that are really just homeschool arrangements, then the mere fact that it's a "high school" wouldn't make it notable, would it? And if it weren't a secondary school, but it had a dozen major sources, then you'd accept that as well, correct?

Given this, it seems silly to say "all secondary schools are notable," because what we mean when we say that is simply "we assume that all bona fide secondary schools will trivially meet WP:GNG." So why not point people to the general notability guideline, in complete confidence that the typical secondary school will trivially exceed its standard? Why should we have a WP:CREEPy restatement of this fact, especially if it could lead to misunderstandings like "my neighbor's homeschool is notable"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of any specific notability guideline? With the possible exception of PROF, every SNG is intended to be a "shortcut" for the GNG. That is, explain how the GNG normally applies to said subject. In the case of schools, the answer is that (nearly) every secondary school is notable.

Your argument could be applied to every existing notability guideline and thus really says nothing about schools at all. It is convenient to have a guideline that says secondary schools are normally notable, just as it is convenient to have one that says professional athletes are notable or national politicians are normally notable. What we accomplish by writing this down, is limiting "I don't think it is notable, so it isn't" and "I can't find anything online, so it doesn't exist" nominations that waste everyone's time. If there is a 99+% chance something (e.g. secondary schools) will be kept at AfD, what exactly is the benefit of not telling people this in advance? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The role in the individual notability guidelines in relation to the GNG is determined independently for each guideline by the community. There is no language whatever that says the GNG is the only acceptable guideline. It's mere;y given as the presumptive guideline--and it is in any case it's in a guideline and there has never been consensus to elevate it into policy. guidelines imply exceptions, which is why it has never been elevated. As for the relationship, in some cases it's an alternative, in some cases it's an additional restriction, in some cases it's a total replacement. There is usually no complete agreement about which one it is, and we've been dealing with situations individually. (personally I would prefer to treat WP:PROF as the only applicable guideline if notability is as a PROF, for example, but that is not the present consensus) If we want this as an alternative, we damn well can use it that way. Who else gets to decide? I agree with Thaddeus about the result--they should all be treated as notable. Is it better to spend time at AfD weeding out the few percent that might not be under the GNG, or adequately debating the really important and questionable cases where there is something worth the discussion. the more we get out from there and into general rules, the better. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support text at top of this section that was inserted at 20:57 December 9. High schools in the United States can almost always meet WP:GNG. Except for a few special-purpose schools such as an adult- or drop-out-recover high school operated by a school system, or a few high schools that are too small to field any competitive teams, it's a foregone conclusion that if you look hard enough you will find enough significant, non-trivial, non-local-to-the-city independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. The fact that an article creator didn't put all of that in doesn't mean the school the article is about doesn't meet the guidelines, and statistics would say for any given new United States high school article, the odds of the subject not being notable per WP:GNG are very small. Some lower-level schools meet WP:GNG but not nearly as many, and you cannot say "almost all are notable, so this one very likely is also" as a blanket statement. No, notability is not automatic, but at some point, it becomes awfully WP:POINTy to tag every high school with insufficient references as "not notable" without spending some time in a news archive yourself.

As an alternative to adding this text, a blanket statement that WP:COMMON is instructive and possibly predictive in seeing if there is a precedent for any particular type of articles that are at AFD for notability issues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A completely different angle

Although I have strong inclusionistic instincts (and was guided here from WP:CENT), I have a coldly-pragmatic argument for letting any documentable school at any level have its own article; perhaps it would stop cluttering the "Education" section of geographic articles with endless strings of schools. I once partially edited Staten Island#Education when the string was something like "I.S. 2, I.S. 3, I.S. 8, I.S. 11, ..." (none linking to an article except I.S. 49), which of course is a meaningless ascending series of random positive integers to any non-Islander. (The same applies to hospitals: Health care in the United States is a good article; the regional articles and the health sections of geographic articles, disappointingly, are just lists, even for New England and California.) School pride is a wonderful thing; if students, teachers, alumni and parents had an article to improve and justify, that might teach them something about Wikipedia, verifiability, research, neutrality, etc. Then the Education section of a geographic article could just start with a hatnote saying "See also:List of schools in ...." and discuss the nature, achievements and failures of local education. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. My opinion is that high schools are generally always notable, junior highs are sometimes notable, and elementary schools are never notable. But nothing gets past the GNG; articles still have to have significant sources. I think I support the wording at the very top of the discussion. Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The wording at the top doesn't try to circumvent any kind of policy or WP:GNG. It simply clarifies what is happening, which is, by definition, the community's current consensus. Most specifically, if this is not the consensus (which is somewhat implied by this discussion here), this is a bigger issue than just rewording this section and something needs to change at WP:AFD or we're going to continue to see tons of proposed AfDs for high schools from one side which then get declined by the other side. That just creates an unnecessary backlog and we all really should get on the same page. --Shirik (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to happen. The keep side continues to argue for keep by claimed inherent notability without providing any actual proof of significant coverage, while those of us who actually follow WP:N continue to try to follow the actual guidelines and WP:V policy. Two more unnotable little private high schools were prodded yesterday and almost immediately deprodded by the same false reasonings noted above "its a high school, nuff said". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith that the community does actually want to come to a consensus here, just we have different beliefs right now. Comments like "it's unlikely to happen" are unconstructive. This discussion is a major step in the right direction. Now we need to follow through. --Shirik (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing unconstructive about it. This discussion has happened many times before, and the result is always the same. I see no sign its going to change here now. Expressing that view doesn't have crap to do with AGF. The fact is people WILL continue to argue "keep, its a high school" unless an actual real stance is taken, which even this proposal is not really going to do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• The 'Common outcome', quoted at the top, is a good pragmatic approach. It should be remembered that public high schools are non-commercial institutions that have a high community profile. Invariably sources are available. The pages need to be kept clean but that is an editorial matter. I see absolutely no reason why each should not have a page. The purpose of notability guidelines is to keep the trivia off this encyclopaedia and, whatever, one's view of schools they cannot be regarded as trivia. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed it is, the status quo can hardly be considered to be a major inclusionist victory given that elementary and middle schools rarely keep their own articles these days. I would more consider it an "unhappy compromise". However, I and others will continue to argue for the retention of high school articles as long as experience shows that when they are given the attention they deserve it is possible to churn out articles which meet all relevant policies and guidelines. There will always be exceptions to such rules, some high school articles may not have the potential to meet WP:N, while some elementary and middle schools might do so on occasion, those will just have to dealt with on a case by case basis. I don't know if there ever will be agreement on anything specific for school articles being written for a guideline, given the amount of division on the issue, I am not optimistic. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have noticed that private and charter high schools don't always get a free pass. Is there anywhere this is written down? Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • All articles require sources. Nothing gets a free pass; everything must be able to produce reliable sources. If editors are keeping obscure high schools with no sources, and deleting relatively famous elementary schools like Murdock-Portal Elementary School (whose failure to name sources doesn't mean that none exist; see [11][12][13][14][15]), then we have serious problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the deletion of school articles should rarely be necessary, unless it is a clear hoax, vandalism, copyvio e.t.c. - if a school article can't pass WP:N then usually it can be merged and re-directed to an appropriate locality article, or school district for U.S. schools. Preferably there should be a check for sources before anything happens, and even if a school article is kept which does not provide sources it should at least have been verified to exist, to avoid hoaxes. I am certainly against absolute rules on what categories of school articles should be kept and deleted, as in practice there are exceptions in both inclusion and exclusion, so we would indeed have serious problems. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Biographies

The high school that a notable individual attended is almost never worth noting in the subject's biography. Naming high schools tends to make biographies bottom heavy with too much emphasis on the subject's origins and not enough focus on the reason for notability. This issue are probably not an point of dispute among experienced editors, but school pride often leads to inclusion of high schools. These references should be deleted. G&E (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which references does the pronoun "these" refer to in the above statement? I don't think lists of notable people should be removed from high school articles, nor do I think the mention of which high school a notable person attended should necessarily be removed from his or her aticle. Location (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that information is almost always worth letting the reader know (at least in an information box) and is often notable. Remember that until about 60 or 70 years ago, university alumni, let alone graduates, were a relatively small part of any nation's population, and a minority of even the successful classes likely to produce notable people. In Britain the custom was always to identify someone's public school and University (or college); British Political Facts, 1900-1968 has separate columns in its table of ministers for upper school and college, asterisking the schools that are not public schools; the fact that prime ministers David Lloyd George, Ramsay MacDonald, Harold Wilson (Wirral Grammar School & Oxford), James Callaghan (Portsmouth Northern Secondary School), Margaret Thatcher (Grantham Girls High School & Oxford) and John Major (left Rutlish School at age 16), among others, did not attend such a public school (although some went to good grammar schools), is in itself notable. George Orwell's career can't be understood unless you know he was a scholarship student at Eton who couldn't afford to attend University. But even in America today I want to know where someone studied before attending college. Now the question of separate categories for all the alumni of every school is a different one. It's useful to know for Boston Latin School, Stuyvesant High School or Phillips Academy (Andover & Exeter), although whether that should appear in the article itself, in a stand-alone list, or as a category probably depends on the school. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Because of recentism, in fact we often concentrate too much on notable people's recent activities and too little on their background, family etc which is relevant to a rounded biography. The high school someone attended invariably will have had an effect on their future lives and should always be included, where available. TerriersFan (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a remarkably sweeping statement, and it won't be true in every case. For example, neither of my grandparents ever attended high school for economic reasons, so it's a bit silly to say that "their high school" had any effect on their lives.

Do you think that high school affiliation is invariably important for elderly murder victims? What about for the murderers? For scam artists and thieves? For people who haven't thought about high school for decades?

Should we provide a comprehensive list of religious affiliations for every notable person, on the grounds that the whole point of religions is to "have an effect on your life"?

Your one-size-fits-all rule strikes me as the sort of thing proposed only by people who believe their high school experience was the pinnacle of their entire lives. It should be rejected favor of what Wikipedia does now, which is to mention high schools when the sources do, and not when they don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Inherent Notability as a slang term

General comment on the misnomer "inherent notability" - when people who understand Wiki-notability speak of inherent notability, they mean There's a snowball's chance that it's not Wiki-notable, don't bother sending it to AFD on notability concerns, instead, spend your time adding citations. If you can't find any after a dilligent search, then you may have found the rare item in this category that is indeed not Wiki-notable. There is a snowball's chance that a head of state is not notable, therefore, using the slang "heads of state are inherently notable" as Wiki-policytalk slang is correct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is what some editors mean with such a phrase, but conflating ends and means -- which this phrase does -- generates an unwarranted level of confusion, especially when we're talking to less experienced editors.

And there are apparently a few editors who deeply believe that even if there were a worldwide conspiracy to never take any notice of a given person, place, or thing that seems personally important to themselves, then Wikipedia should have an article on it anyway. Usually this is phrased as either a WP:CRYSTAL violation ("Well, someday there will be a reliable source about this obscure geographic location, so we should start the article now") or as a claim of "inherent notability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chains/franchises

I think the Chains and franchises portion of this policy is inadequate. It merely states that a specific location of a franchise is not in most cases notable, which is very true. However, it does not state in any way, what makes a chain itself notable. I realize that this entire notability policy exists so that we wouldn't have millions of pages documenting every 100 sq ft mom'n'pop yarn store in the basements of Brooklyn. But I think that this policy should not apply as heavily on chains and franchises. If there was no press coverage of McDonald's (and frankly there quite seldomly is), I believe the size of its Wikipedia page wouldn't shrink a byte. The fact that the company strives so well that it has several locations possibly in several countries should be enough of a notability factor in itself. Just as Wikipedia, newspapers - no matter how local - do not document every opening of a big chain. Even if something important or tragic happened in a location, they would focus on the event and not the location. Often newspapers find these big chains such a de facto existance that they find no reason to bang the drum on something everybody already knows. As such, this coverage-by-independent-news-sources policy is often impossible to meet. Even so, I find a chain with thirty locations notable enough for an introductory Wikipedia page. Yet why isn't there one? --88.113.114.85 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally treat a chain the same way I do any other company of its size and scope, namely, on a case by case basis on its own merits. McDonalds is a Fortune 500 company. The chicken joint with 5 outlets in 2 states probably is not and may or may not meet notability requirements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Our coverage standard isn't impossible to meet: thousands of chains already meet it. Your example of McDonald's suggests that you misunderstand what notability means. There are whole books written about McDonald's. There are scholarly articles about their products, business practices, and cultural meaning. It's not necessary to provide specifically newspaper articles.

In the specific case, it may be simply that no one bothered to write the article yet. Based on what I see on their own website, Arnolds might be notable: they won an advertising prize in 2005, and a survey said they were the most well-known bakery chain in Finland. If it is possible to add to independent verification of these claims, a significant newspaper story from one of the bigger cities about the company (a feature-length story, even if it is partly about a new franchise, will provide solid background about the overall company), or a story in a Finnish business publication about the company, or something like that, then you'd have a good case for notability.

It's also possible that this bakery is not yet notable, but that if it keeps growing at its current pace, then it will become notable before long. In the meantime, it might be named in a new "List of doughnut companies" or "Doughnut franchises", or at Doughnut#Europe (where Finland isn't mentioned except in the section on Germany). "Doesn't get a completely separate article solely about itself" is not the same as "can't be mentioned at all in the English Wikipedia". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've drafted a standard explanation that I hope will make sense.

My motivation is simply being tired of saying the same things over and over again: The fact that editors keep asking the same question on this page proves, beyond any doubt, that we were not communicating Wikipedia's fairly simple rules on this page. "Notability doesn't limit article content" just isn't making any sense to people that don't already know what the rules are.

If anyone can improve the text, then please be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, if you revert something because we "need to talk", then you need to actually talk about it, not just revert it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the "if it's not notable" section is correct but possibly redundant. Subguidelines like this one describe specific cases where it is likely enough source material exists to write a full article about the subject (though it must actually exist as well, to support a standalone article). If the subject is verifiable but does not yet have enough source material to be notable in the context of a separate article, that only precludes a full article. Notability does not directly determine article content, though in practicality generally the most notable examples of a given concept are the ones mentioned in an overarching, general article on the subject (we wouldn't want to mention every restaurant in the world in the restaurant article, but may want to give a few examples of highly notable restaurants, for example.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you think it's essentially correct, and I agree that it's more or less redundant -- at least, it's redundant and unnecessary if, like you and I, you're one of the editors that already knows what the rules are. But we keep getting questions from new editors on this point, which IMO is absolute proof that the guideline was not doing its primary job (to tell people that don't already know the answer how Wikipedia works).

I think it's important for such a section to include a reference to WP:DUE, since spamming a non-notable organization into every possible article violates WP:NPOV, and naming a million restaurants in Restaurant would create serious problems for readers. There is, however, no particular reason why the above bakery chain couldn't be named in a new [[List of restaurant franchises in Finland]] or similar article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As this "correct" information has now been reverted twice by editors that (1) wrongly assert that the change hasn't been mentioned or discussed on this page and (2) apparently can't be bothered to start a discussion themselves, please pretend that this note is a large, blinking notice, with arrows and circles and a paragraph typed on the back, of the discussion immediately above this note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I also add: Wikipedia requires that changes to guidelines be correct, which is to say that they must accurately reflect the community's consensus. There is no rule that either changes or the specific wording be formally, separately, and/or individually discussed, and thus reverting a change to a guideline solely(!) on the grounds that it wasn't discussed is always wrong, in addition to being irrelevant (because based on a factual error) in this specific case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've partially restored the information, leaving the examples out, which I found distracting. I think this is helpful redundancy, addressing real problems. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)