Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Question about WP:NONPROFIT

Editors in a deletion discussion are expressing different opinions about how to interpret WP:NONPROFIT, specifically requirement #2, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." One opinion is that this requirement is basically similar to the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, namely that a nonprofit needs to show substantial third-party coverage. The other opinion is that the use of the word "verified" in the nonprofit requirement means that GNG does not apply and that the sources only need to VERIFY the organization's existence and its activities, rather than necessarily providing SUBSTANTIAL coverage. Any clarification would be appreciated. The discussion is here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Charity; you can skip to the bottom of the discussion which is rather long. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the coverage is required. We're not here to provide a free publicity service for non-profits (or commercial entities either). If the restriction isn't there, as I said in the discussion listed by Melanie, we'll be getting things like my Downby-in-the-Swamp Fish Protection Society's charity stall at Sunquern Thursday Market (definitely a non-profit...) coming in. Peridon (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is clearly expressed on the deletion discussion. This is not a continuation of the AfD. I'd be interested to hear an independent opinion on the difference between WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Those who say we need fairly substantial third-party coverage are correct. The sources have to do more than just verify existence (mere existence does not make anything notable). That said... substance is not necessarily a measure of the amount of text devoted to the topic. A short but meaningful reference can be substantial (ie "of substance"). The key is that the sources should actually talk about the organization, and not simply mention it in passing. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you have gone ahead and reworded WP:NONPROFIT. On what basis did you decide to reword it? There is now no need for point (1), because if point (2) is met the subject meets WP:GNG, so would be considered suitable for an article regardless of whether it was national or international in scope. Sionk (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously someone was confused by the previous language. Clarifying will prevent future confusion. Note that the rewording was simply a cut and paste from what was already stated at the top of the page... which applies to all organizations, of what ever nature (non-profits and for-profits alike).

As for the points... Point (1) is still needed, to indicate that purely local organizations are usually not considered notable (even if they pass GNG)... a substantial write up in a local paper may not be enough to indicate notability (a local paper may contain a substantial write-up about the local Oddfellows chapter... this is not enough to substantiate that the local chapter is notable enough for a Wikipedia article... the local paper may contain an article about the charitable organization that some of the town citizens have set to a help beloved town member recover after a recent car accident, but such sources are not enough to substantiate that this purely local charity is notable enough for Wikipeida). I suppose the two points could be swapped (ie first note that GNG applies... and then give the caveat that, passing GNG may not be enough... with a few exceptions, organizations also need to be national/international in scope). Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG that is disastrous! So you are now saying that local commercial organisations can have a Wikipedia article, but local non-commercial organisations can't. Wikipedia will turn into a commercial business directory!! Why the bias against charities and non-commercial organisations?

I'm surprised one editor can choose to re-write the guidance, I presumed it must have been developed through consensus and there was a logical reasoning behind it. A lot of 'alternative' notability standards are based on the premise that, if the subject meets certain conditions it is presumed almost certain it will be 'notable' e.g. Secondary schools are generally presumed to pass WP:GNG without having to test it. Musical groups who've had 2 albums produced by notable record companies are presumed to be notable etc. etc. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No... the exact same standards should apply to local commercial businesses that apply local non-profits. A write up in the local paper about how Joe's Garage is celebrating its 100th year in business is not enough to indicate that Joe's Garage is notable. However, local commercial enterprises can be different than local non-profits in one respect... they often conduct business outside the local area. This makes it more likely that a business will pass GNG. It does not guarantee that it will, it just makes it more likely. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing it (and by the way I agree that charities need significant coverage, not just verification, and that was how I read it), I have a comment about the requirement that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". I think that is a little extreme. It might be reasonable to demand a national scope in many countries, but in a country the size of the United States or China or Russia, that demand seems exorbitant, and it seems to me that a "regional" scope of activities should be enough. For example, a charity which serves all of California (a state larger than many countries) or all of New England (a six-state area with a population of 14 million) should be able to meet the "scope" requirement IMO. I'd like to see some recognition that there could be a level of scope in between "national" and "local". I already make this distinction in AfD discussions, where I give much more weight to a regional source (such as the Los Angeles Times) compared to a local source (such as the Pasadena Star-News). --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - 'national' is a bit different when comparing the US and Nauru. What level should be drawn, though? As Melanie points out, even dividing into 'states' causes discrepancies of size. State level, nation level in UK, whatever they call areas like Calvados in France (should know - went there last year...), and so on, it's an easily recognised delimiter. So long as coverage is at a level higher than the Deadman's Flats and Slumpville Mercury and Respondent, and fits the multiple coverage criterion, I'd go with state (and equivalent) level. The DFSMR paper is an obvious nohoper local, but papers like the Liverpool Echo sound local but cover very wide areas (in this case Merseyside, a large part of Cheshire and the whole of North Wales). If the paper is a daily, it's probably a good source. If weekly, it's normally just local stuff and the coverage therein can be regarded as bait for a few extra sales. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

on second thought

Hmmm... I am taking a second look at the original text of the section in question. And I have an alternative suggestion to fixing it. What about:

Organizations that meet the following standards are more likely to be notable than those that do not:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

This would then be followed by a repetition of the criteria for establishing notability... such as:

"To establish that a non-profit organization is notable, it must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

What I am getting at here is that I think the section is intended to be a broad statement as to the probability of notability, and not a narrow criteria that "proves" notability if met. Confusion on that point may be what caused the disconnect between Sionik and the rest of us. Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Me again. Yes, what you are saying begins to make sense to me. What now troubles me is that the WP:NONPROFIT criteria is described as an alternate criteria, not additional criteria. If new consensus is that organisations need to meet additional criteria then that should be made clear in the section heading. The lead paragraph currently says quite clearly that organisations need to meet either the primary criteria or the alternate criteria or WP:GNG, not all three. Sionk (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in discussions about statements like this - "such and such is likely to be notable" - and the consensus was that such statements are pretty much worthless. It leaves people wondering - so does that mean it's notable, or not? In any case, the second statement - about multiple third party independent reliable sources - is not a matter of "likely", it constitutes notability and is required for notability. And this proposed wording brings back the "verified" problem. Was your intention to try to deal with the first statement, the "national or international in scope" problem? How about something like "In additional to having multiple independent reliable sources, the scope of the nonprofit should be national or international or equivalent"? Or "a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities are national or international in scope"? --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about a wording like this?

A nonprofit organization is usually considered notable if it meets the following standards:

1. It has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Information about the organization and its activities should be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
2. In addition to the above criterion, a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities are national or international in scope. An organization with purely local impact is generally not considered notable unless it has a national or international reputation.

--MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I like it... The 'its' should be 'theys' for grammatical consistency, though. Or make 'Nonprofit organizations' into 'A non-profit...'. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it, because the bar has been raised higher for non-commercial organisations than commercial ones. Commercial organisations only need to be regionally or nationally known to pass WP:NCORP. You are suggesting that non-profit organisations have to be (at least) nationally known. I would have thought (on the basis of past practise) notoriety at regional level would be adequate. Sionk (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A nitpick - notoriety applies to people like Al Capone, and it is not a direct equivalent to notability or fame. It is misused by the hiphop fraternity (if such an entity exists - they all seem to appear on each other's tapes but exspend much effort dissing each other) where an absolute minimum requirement for notability would be a ticket for littering. Mind you, well referenced notoriety is as much a guarantee of an article as is true fame. We just have to be more careful of the lawyers... Peridon (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've unfrozen, I would suggest Melanie consider the regional aspect, although she is not excluding it. It IS more likely that a national organisation will be notable than a local one - be it business or charity. But a regional one can make it - and a big business fail. I remember one large profitable company - deleted for lack of notability. Millions ate their products, but had never heard of then because 100% of their output carried other people's brands. Supermarket own-brands. Only the purchasing depts, raw material suppliers, employees, and of course the Infernal Revenue, had heard of them. No-one was likely to look them up. There are thousands of charities in the UK - some of which administer funds left for poor relief (which now have resources enough to distribute one bread roll per annum to about thirty people). Others are plain weird. (It wasn't a weird one, but I used to chair a registered charity which was barely notable even in local terms - we used to have to fight to get into the local rag and they normally publish anything local.) Peridon (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this since the question was posted, and I'm not sure what the right answer is. I believe (and this was originally written before my time) that the notion generally wasn't "non-profits", but large, multi-chapter fraternal organizations. See this precursor.

My other thought is that WP:WHYN applies to all articles regardless of subject, and should be sufficient to deal with the instant case. We don't require substantial coverage just for the fun of it or to annoy good-faith editors. We truly need substantial coverage in independent sources, because without it, we cannot comply with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the "regional" idea too - in fact I was arguing for it above - but I was trying with this rewording to keep the same criteria as before. If we are good with adding "regional" we could do something simple like this:

# In addition to the above criterion, a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities or reputation are at least regional in scope, rather than purely local.

As for the "local chapter of a fraternal organization" issue, that is pretty well dealt with already, in the section "Local units of larger organizations". It's easy to mock local charities that serve teeny-weeny constituencies, but let's not go there. What we are trying to exclude here is organizations whose good works are significant and respectable but purely local, like the Friends of Famosa Slough or the San Diego River Conservancy. Lots of coverage, but all local. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point... There are a few organizations that are purely local in scope of activity which are considered notable (although not many)... and there are some organizations that are international in their scope yet not considered notable. Notability isn't really a function of what an organization does or where it does it... it's a function of how widely known the organization is. We determine that by looking at the extent of coverage. If the coverage is purely local in character, we can not claim that the organization is notable. If the coverage is national or international in character, then we can clearly claim that the organization is notable. The question is where to draw the line between the two extremes. I am not sure we can draw a definitive line here. It may be that the best we can do is be note that the wider the scope of coverage is, the more likely it will be that the organization will be considered notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the changes to WP:NONPROFIT have been reverted by another editor. Good. The original purpose of the question that started this discussion was to clarify the difference between WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT, not eliminate it. I'll continue to treat it as an alternate criteria which, if met, signifies notability. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That has not been the thrust of this discussion. Instead, this discussion seems to be about how to eliminate the (possible) ambiguity which you perceive, and to make it clear that GNG is not an alternative or an option, but a requirement. Hopefully we will decide on a wording for the main page which will make that clear.
BTW you originally welcomed my coming here for clarification, but now you seem to have decided that the clarification and discussion here is irrelevant, and that you will continue to insist on your interpretation which no one else seems to share. In fact, the editor who reverted Blueboar's change did it because they thought it was an unnecessary reduplication of the GNG criterion - not because they thought GNG didn't apply. Their edit summary was "no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page". --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I shouldn't be putting words into that editor's mouth. I have invited them here to explain what they meant by that reversion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note It seems that the discussion above has shown that articles considered under WP:NONPROFIT must still adhere to WP:WHYN (and thus WP:GNG). Any additional thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not bothering to read through all of this. Just pointing out that it has long been established that the articles can meet the general notability guideliens OR the secondary guidelines, they don't have to meet both. The secondary ones exist to cover things that are notable that might not meet the GNG, such as winning notable awards or having for WP:ACADEMIC having their work cited by others. Dream Focus 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the question here. Is it your opinion that WP:NONPROFIT establishes a secondary guideline saying that the organization's existence and activities only have to be VERIFIED by secondary sources, rather than significant coverage provided? --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it'd be pointless to repeat the GNG there. If it meets the GNG then there is no need to bother with a secondary guideline. I believe that any organization should be considered notable if its activities get reasonable coverage, even if no one does a detailed interview or review about the organization itself. Dream Focus 03:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness I'm not banging my head against a brick wall. It began to feel like it. It is not an opinion that WP:NONPROFIT establishes a secondary guideline, in fact it says it in black and white. It is an alternative criteria for establishing notability. There are alternate criteria for many things on WP. Thye're not additional, they're alternative. Read almost any AfD debate and you will see that when articles meet alternative criteria they are (almost) always kept. Sionk (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In this context - what is your understanding of "reasonable coverage?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't just be mentioning they had a bake sale, or that they opened up a new chapter in town, or something minor of course. But mentioning that they fed 10,000 homeless people a year, or help thousands of runaway and exploited girls get home safely again, surely should count. Need to add in a bit about their accomplishments as well, not just their coverage. Dream Focus 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that international organizations can be a one guy collecting money and trying to get in the media in one nation to do minor amounts of work in another. And a local charity in a major city could be doing far more good than another charity spread out in different states. The scope of their activities should be considered, not how many locations they have. Dream Focus 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But whatever, they MUST back up these claims with RS, not just the word of the CEO or the official website, and not just one sentence mentions either. And that was the problem we started with - the one that gave rise to this question. Peridon (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems clear. There appears to be some agreement/consensus on that here. At minimum, all articles must pass WP:WHYN - the original article that led us here included. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we clarify the current guidelines?

• I call the question The issues here appear to be twofold: 1) Do nonprofits need to meet the usual requirement for "significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources," or do nonprofits have an alternate criterion that they only need "verification" instead of "significant coverage"? The currently worded guideline can apparently be interpreted as meaning that significant coverage is not required, only verification. 2) Must a nonprofit be national or international in scope, as currently stated in the guidelines as a requirement? ("notable if they meet both of the following standards") Most of us here seem to think "regional" would be a more appropriate guideline. If we can reach consensus on these two points I think the guidelines should be redrawn/clarified. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note For this discussion - these are the essential unanswered questions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (is this needed here)? As for question 2, I think "regional" would be a better criterion if it was used as guideline instead of as a requirement. I find a problem with the current wording in the Primary criteria ("attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability") in that it goes against the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage, no matter its origin. I think the guideline should say that "local media... is not usually an indication of notability", thus recognizing that there are cases were a collection of local sources can work to establish notability for a stand-alone article. This would work with the GNG by suggesting when a source is usually not significant, but not excluding other ways to meet it.

See Places of local interest - it's an essay but it gives lot of insights into what works and what doesn't. As applied to nonprofits, to remain on-topic, it suggest to include the information to an article on the community where the organization is located. That section may grow because it has lots of verifiable information from local sources; say the nonprofit is involved in a scandal and all local newspapers cover it during months or years. It would make sense to split off the section to a spinoff article even if all sources the available are strictly local. But the requirement of strictly regional coverage would forbid that spinoff and hurt the structure of the first article. This is what I mean when I say that "regional" should not be seen as a requirement but only a guideline.

By stating that local is only usually not an indication of notability, you would still allow for those situations to be within policy but turn the Wikipedia:burden on those editors willing to keep a stand alone article, and make them explain why the collection of local sources is an exception to the usual criterion that they are not significant (such as, for example, because the sources place the organization in context with respect their importance to the community). Diego (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2 I've found "exhaustive coverage of an area" used as a judgment for which sources are significant. I think it could be much more useful than the "local" or "regional" criterion as the reason to avoided articles for all organizations in an area. Sources that are expected to cover all organizations don't establish notability, but sources that highlight one particular organization above the rest will establish it, even if they are local. This is in the spirit of WP:ROUTINE but it's not against wp:GNG in the same way that "local" sometimes is. Diego (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply Thank you! Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording here is something of a legacy from the early days, and based on what I see of its development, I think that the "national or international in scope" was meant to be a good guess at what kinds of clubs were likely—but not guaranteed—to have significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Also, back in the day (this really is a holdover from the early days), the community didn't care quite so much about whether multiple, independent sources had been published, so long as they could write something or another. Our best option might be to scrap it, or to re-word it so that it's clear that this standard is a marker for the likelihood of finding proper sources (much like winning an Oscar usually produces lots of sources and therefore is a good hint about whether an actor will be notable), not a guarantee of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need to re-word it myself. The alternative criteria already starts with "The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability."

However, I agree with MelanieN's suggestion that most US states are larger than many countries, so extending the alternative criteria to regional nonprofits may be a sensible idea.

And should we stick to talking about WP:NONPROFIT here, otherwise this section will go off on another set of tangents?! Sionk (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliably sourced ≠ Notable

Catching up on some of the threads above, there seems to be a misconception that as long as reliable sources covering a topic exist, the subject must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. This is not true. We can say that a lack of reliable sources is strong evidence against the notability of a topic but we can not necessarily guarantee the reverse. The mere existence of a reliable source mentioning a topic is not sufficient all by itself to establish the notability of the topic.

Remember that WP:RS sets the bar for the sources which can be used to defend and substantiate the content of an article. Even a routine and trivial restaurant review can be sufficient to defend the address, genre of food and clientele of a restaurant. An interview quoting the CEO of a company proves the existence of the company. Those datapoints alone, however, are not enough to form the basis for a proper, balanced and neutral encyclopedia article. The issue is one of critical mass. Press releases can be exactly true but will inherently only tell the company's side of the story. A single restaurant review, whether good or bad, is still only a single opinion about the company. It takes multiple, independent and in-depth sources which directly analyze and discuss the organization in order to give us a reasonable assurance that balanced encyclopedia article is possible.

Incidentally for everyone who keeps citing WP:GNG above, it's worth remembering that those standards were first written here. The editors at WP:CORP created the concept of "multiple, independent, substantive, reliable sources" as a minimum baseline. The standard proved its worth and was adopted about a year later as the more general rule. Rossami (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that "the mere existence of a reliable source mentioning a topic is not sufficient all by itself to establish the notability of the topic." The standard is the existence of reliable sources that substantially discuss the topic or subject. In other words, you have to do more than just count sources... you actually have to look at the sources, and see the extent to which they talk about the topic or subject.

That said... I do think there are situations where lots and lots of passing references in disparate sources can establish notability. These situations are rare, however, and should be seen as being rare... they are "exceptions to the rule" (essentially an invocation of WP:IAR, which should not be stated in the guideline). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I'm wondering if there is a notability noticeboard. I'm asking cause I think I have a couple of great ideas for new articles, but I'm not sure if they'd be considered extremely notable, and I'd rather ask people than have my article deleted (as that's a waste of effort). Is there any way to discuss an article before its created?VR _talk 01:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. You can also try asking at the relevant WikiProject pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Heys International Ltd page

I am trying to create a page for Heys International Ltd.- Canadian Luggage company. But I am getting a notability error. Heys Internationals sister company Heys USA inc. has a page, why cannot I create one for Heys International Ltd?

Pinksam7 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might want to start with WP:BFAQ and WP:FIRST.

Have you considered writing one article that covers both companies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Both companies are run separately so the pages need to be different. My sources are all reliable sources such as Toronto Star newspaper and Globe and Mail newspapers. Pinksam7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

The corporate structure doesn't determine the Wikipedia article structure. Multiple related organizations (and products) are often handled in a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an organization be considered notable if its studies are cited by the media?

If scientific research done by an organization is quoted by the news media, then shouldn't that organization be considered notable? The news people seem to find them notable enough to use them for references. Dream Focus 07:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not just scientific research, but any kind of research. As an example RealtyTrac which tracks foreclosures in the USA is regularly quoted by US media once a month. Even a search on Wikipedia brings up dozens of references - but oddly no article exists about this organization? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless the media publishes substantial information about the organization itself, the organization would not be sufficiently notable for WP. The organization's reports and publications might however be notable in their own right if the media quotes and cites them. Roger (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Providing a report does not necessarily lead to secondary sources to ultimately meet the GNG. That said, if the report is rather significant/though-provoking (say, a report that counters the current thinking on global warming), it is very likely that people will ask "who is this group?" and will report on what they found about the organization publishing the report, and then there may be sufficient coverage of that organization due to that. But that's not a assurance in all such cases, and thus cannot be called out here as a special criteria for notability. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree... WP:ONEEVENT apples here (or should)... a notable study can come from a non-notable organization. Notability is not inherited. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean regularly quoting them. Not just a single report of theirs got coverage. And the secondary guidelines exist, to cover things that should be in Wikipedia that don't meet the GNG. Obviously there isn't much to write about these organizations, while famous people have hordes of articles written about them constantly. The news media caters to their audiences of course. WP:NOTINHERITED means, for example, if you are a family member of someone famous, that doesn't just make you famous. WP:SCHOLAR shows that an individual is notable if their work is cited by peers. You do inherit notability from your accomplishments. Dream Focus 15:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED applies not just to family members but to any top-down connection between topics: individual episodes of a television show aren't notable just because the show is notable, for example. The secondary guidelines exist to provide guidance for topics that will, in time, ultimately meet the GNG but likely can't at the present because source are difficult to locate or haven't been written yet, but on the bases of the achievement or the like, will have a very high certainty of being available. The act of publishing a report is not such a case. In the case of SCHOLAR, the idea behind it is that if someone's work is cited with high frequency, their work to the field they are in is likely very important, and thus secondary sources about them and their research can be certain to exist. However, that would not work if it was only a single work and absolutely no other works published; that falls to BLP1E/ONEEVENT again. Same would be true of an organization publishing a report. There's a reason why firms that are prolific in publishing like Pew Research are notable, while one-shotters aren't. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a notable book can be written by a non-notable author, a reliable source] is not necessarily a notable entity. If there is not substantial writing about the organization (as opposed to using their research), then they aren't notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• MASEM you say that all the time, even with most everyone else disagreeing with you. I don't feel like having this same conversation with you yet again. Orange Mike, you can not publish a notable book and not be a notable person because of it. WP:AUTHOR The person's work 4(c) has won significant critical attention If the book is notable enough to get reviews, then their work has gotten significant critical attention. The few times I've seen someone put an article about a bestselling writer up for deletion, it has always ended in overwhelming keep. Dream Focus 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A book can be notable without having won significant critical attention, due to other factors. I remember a successful AfD, for instance, on a guy who writes bestselling technical manuals on computer programming for specific languages. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a vast difference between best-selling fiction authors (which generally get pulled into "entertainment" news, and thus a lot more publicity and thus a lot more sources) and mass media non-fiction authors, and academic authors. Within the academic world, academics are not prone to fame like mass-media authors and there just doesn't exist a media framework around the coverage of the academics like there is for entertainment. The same applies to organizations that write reports, though there if the report is significant enough, you now may have more traditional news coverage providing the background on the work and eventually the organization. But again, that just doesn't happen all the time. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an organization be considered notable if its studies are cited by the media? Shouldn't a person be considered notable if he gets quoted in the media? It's the same question, and the answer is "no" both times. You need significant coverage if you're actually going to write an article. An article that says "MyOrg was once quoted in The Mayberry Times... MyOrg's press release was re-published on a news-media website... MyOrg issued something they called a "report" that was mentioned in passing in some newspaper articles that were otherwise entirely about something other than MyOrg..." would be a bad article, and that's all the article that you'd be able to write from the typical "the media cited MyOrg's report today" kinds of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an organization be considered notable if its studies are cited by the media?
No for the same reason that a company making notable products does not automatically inherit notability itself. The reports and quotes from the example at the top of this thread, in fact, are the products of the company. If the reports are independently reviewed, cited and discussed, they can be the subject of an article. If the company producing the reports is effectively invisible with no substantive, independent coverage, then by definition we have nothing to say about the company other than "they wrote the X report". That is not enough to make a proper encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumption of notability vs. demonstration of notability

This last thread raises an issue that I think we need to address... not just in the GNG, but in all of our notability guidelines. A lot of our notability guidelines talk about the "presumption of notability"... what is really being discussed in such sections is the likelihood of notability. Such sections make good guidance... but too often people mistake the guidance for "the rules". They read the guideline and say:

• "If topic X meets presumption Y, then X is notable. Alternatively, if topic X does not meet presumption Y, then X is not notable."

We need to clarify this misunderstanding. People should read the guideline and say:

• "Since topic X meets presumption Y, then it is likely that I will find sources to demonstrate that X actually is notable" Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't belong on any one secondary guideline page. The WP:GNG already states A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.. Discuss it on that talk page or talk it to the Village Pump discussion page. Dream Focus 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started that discussion at WT:N, but to be clear, what Blueboar is implying is understanding how SNGs should be developed so that we can say, without question "Notability is meeting the GNG or meeting one of the SNGs" without worrying about the SNGs being overly broad. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has rules that say RealtyTrac whose statistics are the only ones published by the media on a regular basis is not notable, than those rules have to change. Let's face it, if RealtyTrac did not exist, then the US will not be facing a Foreclosure crisis, a Category:United States housing bubble or any other kind of financiaL or economic crisis. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RealtyTrac, Realtytrac, and RealtyTrac Inc were all twice speedily deleted as blatant advertising, copyvio, and "no importance".[1][2][3]. An article on a notable organization speedily deleted six times, sheesh! I've now written a proper article using secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example is that of Light Reading ("Light Reading (www.lightreading.com), owned by Techweb, is the ultimate source for technology and financial analysis of the communications industry..."), which provides hundreds of references to articles on Wikipedia, yet does not have its own article. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we want to change that wording to say "generally presumed but not proven to be notable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "not proven to be notable" is a good wording. Establishing notability for a topic is always achieved by consensus, not because it has 'proof'. Thus the current wording "presumed to be notable" is a consecuence of editors agreeing on notability because of the stated criteria, not the other way around. The current guideline is better understood as descriptive, not prescriptive. Under this light, the current wording is accurate; if you think it needs further clarification perhaps it should be made in this direction. Diego (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as you cannot prove a negative (that a topic is not notable), we can only provide evidence to make presumptions if it is or isn't. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That, and those presumptions can change any time. A guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"; in this context "a topic is presumed notable if it meets the criteria" means "editors should agree to create the article if they have reliable, independent sources, but there are exceptions". No guideline can be stricter than that. Diego (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So the issue becomes who the "media" is? What if all the newspapers in the world (I can't imagine this happening) go out of business? Or maybe everyone starts to get their news from YouTube and CNN goes under? Would you only be notable if you had 100 Youtube views? 10? 10,000,000? And then who is the "media"?Saltwolf (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What kind of sources for submissions about commercial organisations should we be looking for?

I've only really been reviewing articles for a couple of months, so the following issue may have been debated - and settled - before. But having reviewed (or tried to review) a number of articles about commercial organisations, I would like to raise the question: what is significant coverage of a commercial organisation? What are the kinds of independent third-party sources that we should expect to see, to demonstrate the notability of a company or corporation?

Often, an article is only supported by references to pieces in the trade press (including websites) of the particular industry or business of the company; and when you look closely at the references many of the apparently independent sources referred to are clearly just press releases that have been rewritten by a journalist on the trade paper or website. For example, see this submission which I have just reviewed and declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels & Resorts

Should we expect at least one significant piece in the general media - for example a national newspaper - as well as coverage in the trade press? Should we discount articles in third-party sources which look like they have just been written up from one source: a company's press release (as I have just done in my review of the article mentioned above)?

I think some clearer consensus on this issue - and more explicit guidelines - will give reviewers more confidence in dealing with this kind of article (as well as with articles about new commercial products, where again all or most of the sources are regurgitated press releases). Skeowsha (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick reply, since you've already waited a long time for any answer:

The trade press is okay, even if it looks to you like they're merely copyediting a press release. It's not the Wikipedia editor's job to decide whether the journalist should be fired for plagiarism or laziness. It's only our job to decide whether it was WP:Published by an outfit with editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, no connection to the subject, etc. (See WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a more complete summary.)

On the other hand, paid advertisements, actual press releases, corporate websites, etc., are not useful for notability purposes. They are useful (within limits) for WP:Verifiability purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is no substantial coverage in the mainstream business press (Barron's, The Economist, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and the like), then you have to question whether the firm is truly notable. Is it covered by Value Line and Standard & Poors? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I must disagree strongly with WhatamIdoing. Trade press publications are very weak evidence at best because, as Skeowsha notes, they frequently contain little more than unverified rewrites of company-issued press releases. It is our job to decide if a source is reliable and exercising proper editorial control. An author who merely copyedits the company's press release is failing in that obligation.
Trade press also suffers from the "infinite divisibility" problem. Any company can be number one in its industry sector if you define the sector narrowly enough. Some trade publications are so narrow that they provide zero effective evidence of the company's general notability.
Let me add a couple of qualifiers, though.

1. A publisher can have in-depth, well-sourced articles right next to junk reprints. (The business section of most major newspapers will have multiple examples on almost any given day.) We can not merely evaluate the publication as a whole but must look at the work itself to decide if it meets the usability criteria. Orange Mike's rules of thumb are better but the emphasis must be on the "substantial" coverage. Even the WSJ reprints some press releases.
2. Despite the above, press releases can be perfectly acceptable as sources for content of an article. They are merely insufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Notability must be demonstrated through other, independent and substantial sources. If, on the other hand, you can find nothing except press releases and trade press write-ups, it is almost certainly premature to be attempting an article on that company.

Rossami (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly are you going to tell whether a puff piece is a reprinted press release, or just a bit of puff? That's the problem with the entire line of argument. Unless you can prove that a given news article really is a press release, then you need to assume that it is the news article that it claims to be. WhatamIdoing (talk)

No, the burden of proof is the other way around. I'll explain in more detail where you asked basically the same question below. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding what is 'notable' with regard to an NGO. I just had an article speedily deleted because an admin said that citations of the organization's work by scientific peer-reviewed papers did not count as secondary sources. Was he wrong? Saltwolf (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

removal of definition of notability from "‎Decisions based on verifiable evidence"

A sentence has been removed that said, "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' "  The diff with the removal has the following edit comment:

• (‎Decisions based on verifiable evidence: Cut "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."". As also at WP:N, this is a dictionary definition that is much looser, and inconsistent with, the GNG.)

This sentence was added along with another sentence on 2007-02-03T20:46:23, here. The edit comment was

• (Added sentence from WP: Notability "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".")

The second sentence, "'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.'", has been moved twice and remains as a part of WP:CORP#No inherent notability.

The "Main page" for the paragraph with the removal is page: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires verifiable evidence.  A related removal has occurred at WP:N and there is a discussion at WT:N#"worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This situation is similar as that discussed at WT:N, but is not exactly the same. The removed sentence here was even more unclear. I would probably be very happy to see you replace the removed sentece with something clearer. On face value, I do not read from it what you apparently read from it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's okay to remove this sentence. I'd be happy to have it replaced by something like "On the English Wikipedia, notability is a term of the art used to identify subjects that the community chooses to have separate, standalone articles about." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the definition in the lede of WP:N, I find this to be one of the more useful sentences in the notability guidelines.  I'm not aware of another place that reveals the viewpoint that notability can be understood in the sense of a topic "attracting notice", and it is one that I cite from time to time.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Attracting notice" is an idea that notability is a function of the topic, and not something that comes from outside of the topic.  Deletion viewpoints upon occasion tout with the word "confer", as in "<strawman topic> doesn't confer notability on <so-and-so topic>".  This logically leads to agreement that <strawman topic> doesn't confer notability on <so-and-so topic>, because this is a truism—not only does <strawman topic> not confer notability, nothing else does either.  "Confer" means "bestows", in which the motive force is the bestower; whereas with "attracting notice", the motive force comes from the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the difference between "worthy of notice" and "worthy of being noted", I think this is an insignificant historical difference.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the above comments explain why "attracting notice" is a phrase in WP:CORP and not elsewhere.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with points about “attracting [independent] notice”, although I think it oversimplifies. I am disappointed to see that you have put the sentence back in unimproved. As it is, it is more easily misunderstood than understood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still interested in the explanation for the statement in the first edit comment that there is an inconsistency with WP:GNG.  Your viewpoint that it is more easily misunderstood than understood is contradicted by the evidence that I just gave, and there is no counter-evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the WP:GNG "General notability guideline" as being a fairly precise definition of notability as it is used (or to be used) at WP:N and beyond, certainly including WP:DEL#REASON. The inferable statement "notable" = "worthy of notice" is a very near circular, very loose definiton that allows the reader to selectively misinterpret. In particular, it allows the interpretation that "worthy of notice" is an inherent characteristic of the subject. This means that something might be notable even if no source has ever covered the subject. This would contradict the GNG, which properly emphasises the existance of certain sources.

[insert begins here]

Regarding "This means that something might be notable even if no source has ever covered the subject."; right, that is what our current notability guidelines say, with an adjustment to change "source" to "WP:V reliable source" and "subject" to "topic".  Rather than a prose explanation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avounbaka for an example of a notable topic with no WP:V reliable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:GNG is but one guideline to deciding if a topic might be worthy-of-notice-to-have-a-standalone-article.  Even with WP:GNG, maps are an example of in-depth non-trivial coverage in a secondary source without prose, for an example see Barber Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[insert ends here]

I'm not sure about "more easily misunderstood than understood", it is bad enough that it is easily misunderstood, even if most don't misunderstand. I don't know what you mean by evidence here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about my proposal to add a "== Definition ==" section.  The first thing to do would be to reconnect the two sentences added on 2007-02-03 and currently on the Project page.  There are some edits from late 2006 early 2007 that made sense and could be considered, as well as the current suggestions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Where did you propose this? Are you referring to this edit by Kevin Murray at 20:46, 3 February 2007? I don't think that was a useful edit. It even produces an incoherent paragraph. In general, definitions are good, even if they just ensure that the authors are speaking the same language. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Literally, the proposal was at WP:N, but the idea can work here, too.  However, without my knowledge, you had already posted at WP:N objecting to Uncle G's 2006-12-23 post before I posted here.  Perhaps you can drop him a line and see if he'd like to have some input.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise that removes the potentially confusing dictionary definition, while still retaining the useful "attracting attention" idea, we could adapt the nutshell from WP:N, which says "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons."

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are newspapers the touchstone of notability?

I am really puzzled by why newspapers and "web pages" are the touchstones of notability. I am trying to write an article about a non-profit advocacy NGO whose research has been cited by reputable medical researchers in peer-reviewed scientific publications. The group advocates on a fairly narrow topic involving industrial safety, but within the field they are in, these citations are very notable. But no newspaper or blog would talk about them. So by virtue of using newspapers as the touchstone, doesn't that fall back into the trap of avoiding advertising and publicity? And don't you encourage the creation of fake but sophisticated blogs to create an appearance of reliability? Don't newspaper articles get written mostly by what the general public with an 8th grade reading level wants to see? Shouldn't notability vary in the particular community that determines what is important to it (namely scientific citations should be considered valid secondary sources)? Thanks for your thoughts on these issues Saltwolf (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An entity's work can be notable without the entity itself being notable. The source must have content about the NGO itself, not the reports or articles that the NGO publishes. Roger (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's one way to think about it: imagine that the only thing you know or can write about is what's written in independent sources (i.e., nothing written by anyone connected to the organization). How much of an article could you actually write? Would the article sound a lot like "This organization's work was cited in a footnote... This organization's work was cited in another footnote...", or would you be able to say something about the organization and its history? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that you can infer something about the organization by looking at the work that it had done in the referenced material. So you would say "so and so published this work in this article on this thing." But then you are looking at the source. I don't know - I'm reading all the other comments on this page and my head is getting even more confused :} Saltwolf (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have to infer something, then by definition we don't have reliable sources that say it. Making the inference ourselves would be prohibited original research and would violate the principle that encyclopedias are tertiary sources.
Back to your original question, though. No, in my opinion, newspapers are not the "touchstone of notability", though they can be a reasonable proxy for it. The question of notability derives from our requirement to have the necessary critical mass of independent, reliable sources such that we have a reasonable chance of being able to write a balanced, neutral and fact-based encyclopedia article on the topic. When there are too few sources or when the sources are all one-sided, we get garbage articles that end up deleted at AfD. That wastes everybody's time and really frustrates new users who thought they were helping the encyclopedia.
When the topic is an organization (whether corporate or non-profit), the driving question is almost always "how much has been written about the organization itself", excluding press-releases and other non-independent sources. For large, publicly-held organizations, it's rarely a problem. But for smaller, privately-held organizations (including many non-profits), especially those who choose to stay out of the limelight, it is frequently quite difficult to find the necessary sources. Note that it is entirely possible for an organization's products (the research papers in your example above) to be notable and to be covered in the encyclopedia even though the creating organization does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards for a separate article.
I hope that makes it a little clearer. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is one problem with using newspapers or any news organization. That is that they seem to depend on using press releases and either copy them unaltered or as a sole source. So notability is basically that news media decided that a particular press release is noteworthy. While not a ringing endorsement for the notability of something, as you said, it is a proxy of sorts. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree - newspaper coverage is a "maybe" at best until the article has been carefully evaluated for its independence. Rewrites of press releases may be used to verify non-controversial facts but they have zero value in the evaluation of notability. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know that the news article is a "rewrite of a press release"? Psychic abilities, maybe?

I've dealt with POV pushers who wanted to exclude specific facts taken from newspaper articles on the grounds that they just knew (magically, I guess) that any and all positive facts about a company were just blindly copied over from a press release. Is that the kind of source evaluation you support?

Notability (=whether the subject qualifies for an article on Wikipedia) is about how much attention the subject received in the real world. It is not about whether that real-world attention involved deep investigations into the organization. If it actually got the ink (without paying for it) from a credible media outlet, then you need to treat it just like any other news article for notability purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you have the burden of proof the wrong way around. It is incumbent on the person providing the source to show that the news article is independent - that it was written as, for example, an investigative journalist's report and not as a press release rewrite. That's not to say that the coverage must be negative and certainly not to say that all press-release content must be removed from the article. Self-published sources are allowed as substantiation of non-controversial facts. The only point is that self-published material can not be used as evidence in the narrow question of whether or not the subject meets our inclusion criteria. Unevaluated reprints that a newspaper runs just to fill column-inches are no better than paid ad copy for proving or disproving that point.
How do you tell whether it's an unevaluated reprint rather than a truly balanced article? I don't know that there is any magic answer but there are some pretty good clues in most articles. If the article has a byline, it's probably independent. If the article includes at least some negative content or opposing perspective, it's probably independent. If the article deals with real social issues and implications, it's probably independent. If it's completely one-sided and uncritical, then it's probably a puff-piece (unless it's on the editorial page where balance is not expected). If it's a mere announcement of personnel moves, awards received, donations given, etc. it's almost certainly self-published. Really, it's easier to identify the self-published stuff than it is to explain it. Read a few hundred press releases. The tone, language and structure are not that hard to identify. Rossami (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on the general point. If the newspaper has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then you should assume that each individual article in it is a reliable source until you have some verifiable reason to believe otherwise (e.g., other reliable sources disagreeing with it).

I think the advice you give erroneously conflates unrelated issues: puff pieces aren't press releases. Nothing printed as a regular news item in a newspaper is self-published, including "mere announcement of personnel moves, awards received, donations given, etc.". Really, it's easier to read a dictionary definition of self-publication than to make a serious mistake like that. Or you could go down to your local newspaper and tell the actual publisher that he's letting the subjects of his stories decide what to run in his paper. I'm sure he'd be happy to hand you your head on a platter for making that accusation.

But you're definitely wrong in the case I'm thinking of. The article was about the opening of a new retail store. It appeared as a regular article in a daily newspaper and was signed by the individual reporter who wrote it. And the editor in question was willing to accept every single sentence in the article except one (reporting the country of origin for the goods sold in the store) that he just magically knew was uncritically copied over from a press release and never fact-checked. He made a diligent effort but never found a single contradictory source or even any evidence that the company issued a press release containing the same information. According to you, I'd have to prove that the newspaper fact-checked that specific sentence before it could be cited. That's not what the community wants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but I understand why you think that. Your argument here assumes that a newspaper with a reputation for responsible journalism applies that standard to every article in the publication. No newspaper does that. Every newspaper, even the most reputable like the NY Times or Wall Street Journal, includes press-release reprints as filler material in their business section for example. And every honest editor will admit to it. Go ask - because I have and my head is still firmly attached. Or prove it yourself. Pick any large company, look at the press releases on their website and then start looking for the same content in the newspaper. They won't all be reprinted and some will be rewritten to a greater or lesser degree but every newspaper uses them.
A reputation for fact-checking is a factor in favor of the source but it is not and can never be a bright-line distinction.
I will also argue that your counter-example is irrelevant. Self-published material is allowed as a source for content in a Wikipedia article. See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. The editor you are talking about who required the removal of the country-of-origin factoid was wrong. It's irrelevant because that's a debate about content in an existing article. My point - my only point - is that self-generated material can not be used as evidence in the question of whether or not the company meets the criteria necesssary to get a Wikipedia article in the first place. There must be sources independent of the company itself before Wikipedia allows an article on the company. And the burden of proof is on the contributor to show that the sources are sufficient. Once the company has passed Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as a topic, though, the debate over the content of the article uses a different threshold. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

1. The fundamental job of the publisher is to decide what to publish. I have never yet met a newspaper publisher who would agree with you that the person sending out the press release was the person who decided whether or not that material appeared in the newspaper.
2. You are asking for an impossibility. It is absolutely impossible for a Wikipedia editor to demonstrate that a specific sentence in a regular, obviously non-press-release newspaper article was fact-checked. That's why we don't require that editors do this—and WP:BIAS is why we don't permit them to say that the parts of the source they agree with are fine, but the sentences they personally disagree with are obviously copied from press releases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Illegal conduct

I have added the following paragraph to the guideline: There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline. However, keep in mind that the organization may still be notable under a separate guidelines (e.g., WP:CRIME).

I added this paragraph because of concern that an organization or company which is alleged to have done something illegal could have been considered notable under this guideline even if they would not otherwise be notable as an organization, and their illegal conduct was not notable under WP:CRIME. For example, let's say you have a small business that is not at all notable, and they are alleged to be defrauding customers. That story may make a local newspaper or local TV news, but it does not meet the "historic significance" requirement of WP:CRIME. However, if the story is covered by a few independent sources, it could currently qualify under this guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what I think about this. It might or might not be helpful overall. I kind of doubt that it accurately describes current community practice, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think the change is unnecessary. If there is substantial news coverage only about the crime, then it's the crime that's notable, not the company. This is no different than a similarly passing mention that is favorable to the company - a donation to Habitat for Humanity, for example. The core standard is and always has been that the source must be substantively about the subject, that is, the company itself, before it can be counted as a source in debates over the notability of that subject. Articles that are primarily about some other topic but which just happen to mention the subject may be usable for other purposes but they have no weight in the inclusion criteria debate. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Separation of the crime and the organization may not be possible. It's a bit different than a charitable donation where there is a lot of discussion about the charity, and how they'll use the money. An article about an organization committing some illegal act will focus heavily on the organization. I was recently involved in an AfD where most of a small company's notability came from sources which discussed whether the company had broken the law (it was uncertain). If the sources had been discussing an individual, WP:CRIME would be the governing policy, and there is no way that the notability guideline would be met. However, if a company or organization receives that same coverage, this guideline is the governing policy, and the bar is substantially lower. NJ Wine (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Trivial coverage examples

The last two entries on the list of examples of trivial coverage are:

• quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
• passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

It seems to me that these two are essentially the same thing or, at least, close enough to not warrant their both being (these are just examples, after all). I propose deleting the second one. Thoughts? EEng (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being thrown off by the example in the second item. The two items are:

• quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
• passing mentions.

which are clearly not the same thing. We then try to give folks an idea of what a "passing mention" is, by saying that if the only thing in the whole book or news article about the company is "...said Alice Expert, an employee of MyCorp", then that's just a passing mention of MyCorp and doesn't count towards notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just so. I suggest we change it to read as you have it above. (I italicized the excerpts to make things clearer -- hope that's OK.)

EEng (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem with people not knowing what a "passing mention" is. That's why we're supplying an example of a passing mention. Remember, this isn't written for people like you and me, with thousands of edits to our credit; it's written for inexperienced people who want to do the right thing, but who are really, really hoping that "the right thing" involves promoting their own company or product. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of learned societies with weak coverage

Recently I expanded an article on International Sociological Association, but I am having trouble getting it DYKed, as three editors now pointed that the article is primarily based on self-published sources (ISA's website) and thus fails GNG an more specifically, the WP:NGO policy. At least for social science organizations, this is a widespread problem. Two biggest sociological organizations in the world are ISA and the American Sociological Association. Having finished the article on ISA I am pretty sure I exhausted all online sources (or even, all sources I can find a mention of online), and there is not a single publication dedicated to ISA other than a history work they have commissioned few years back and published on their own website. I have not done such a research on ASA, but I wouldn't expect more. And as for the most of the entries in Category:Sociological organisations... tough luck finding anything besides their own websites, too. It is a fact of academic life that such organizations attract little media attention, and little scholarly attention as far as being a subject of books or articles. At the same time, I think it is indisputable that international and national professional academic organizations, quite central to those professions, are notable. We may want to discuss the notability of regional (subnational) organizations (ex. in US, Eastern Sociological Society or Pacific Sociological Association, but setting those aside, I think we need to modify our policy to make it clear that national and international learned societies are notable, even if they have no widespread coverage in non-self published sources. Incidentally, if we look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), it is worth noting that such learned societies fulfill numerous criteria: 1) they usually have substantial impact on the field, organizing national and international conferences, 2) they often award prestigious awards that make academics notable (criteria 2), 3) some of them are the very organizations in whose membership counts towards notability, particularly at the higher level (criterias 3 and 6), they often publish notable journals, whose editorship makes academics notable (criteria 8).

However, as things stand, a deletionist could make an argument that most of the learned societies are not notable due to lack of widespread coverage. Therefore, I would like to add the following sentence to the "Non-commercial organizations" (WP:NGO) section of our policy, probably to the "Additional considerations" part: "Learned societies are an exception, as they are notable provided one of the listed criteria is fulfilled." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the best solution might be, but I very much agree with the observation of the problem. Professional societies are not at all well covered here, and some guidance on the notability issues might help that. — James Cantor (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I understand the frustration being expressed here, but I have some questions. As someone who knows very little about the field of Sociology... how do I verify that the ISA meets the criteria you propose - without reference to external sources?

Looking at the criteria more explicitly:

1. If a learned society has "a substantial impact on the field", shouldn't that impact be reflected in sources? As for conferences... Not all conferences are the same. Sure, some are huge... attracting hundreds or thousands of highly qualified academics... but anyone can organize a gathering and call it a "conference" - and some "conferences" are, in reality, nothing more than 10 guys meeting in a hotel conference room (and if you get your friend from South America to show up... wow... it's "International"). So how do we know the difference without external sources that discuss the organization that is holding the conference.
2. This one sets up circular notability... the academic is notable because he received the award from the organization, which is notable because it issued the award to the academic (who is notable because he got the award [from the notable org {which is notable for issuing the award to the academic... who ... etc. etc. etc.}]).
3. ) Publishing a notable journal is a good criteria... but how do we know the journal is notable without sources?

In short... somewhere along the line, we need to be able to find sources to back up a claim of notability. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it should, if somebody was to study it. In the case of ISA, it is described - in the study they commissioned. The author is a reliable academic, but it is a self-published source. Now, there are other passing mentions, I just added one that calls it "a world leading international sociological organization", but even such descriptions are relatively rare. I am not aware of any list published by reliable, international body that could give as an international list of all notable learned societies. For sociology, I would say that such a list can be created based on which organizations are members of ISA, which was set up under UNSCO to unite the world of sociology, but, of course, that sets up a circular logic you mentioned. Everybody in the field of sociology knows that ISA is "the" International organization. But how can I prove that to you? I am left, sadly, shaking my head at the abysmal state of available sources. Regarding notability of journals, I think somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals can provide a better answer than I for that. Publishing a notable journal is a good crtieria, but I am not sure if all associations do that. It would be useful to determine a notability of a conference; I think it may be a potential solution to say that for a learned society to be notable, it has to 1) publish a notable journal 2) organize a notable conference. If it fails at those two, I am not sure what good it is... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a concrete list of suggested traits (analogous to WP:PROF) would be very helpful. Having multiple notable members, coverage of annual conferences in the media, having a journal that has an impact factor, etc.. Again, it could be like PROF to provide guidance, but still acknowledge the room for exceptions.— James Cantor (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

International scope and assertions of UNESCO affiliation do not constitute a gold standard of credibility. See International Association of Educators for World Peace and International Parliament for Safety and Peace. --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great example of why "notable" and "important" are different things. ISA seems to be important. But it does not seem to be notable, i.e., it does not seem to have attracted enough attention from independent outsiders to make it possible for us to write a fair, WP:Neutral article. Given the sources that we've been able to find, we can only write an unfair, biased article, i.e., an article that tells our readers what ISA wants them to know about ISA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ABOUTSELF makes it clear that self-published sources are acceptable, under several conditions, which academic professional organizations usually satisfy. There are sources, nobody complains about their neutrality under current guidelines, hence the topics are notable - even if we have to rely on self-published sources to a higher extent than for some other types of articles (organizations). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF says that you can use the subject's own website (etc) to support specific, individual statements. It does not say that you can use only the subject's own website to determine the fair, neutral, balanced, objective view of the subject. It's more than WP:V; you must also satisfy NPOV. It is absolutely impossible to satisfy NPOV if you never consult any source except the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In connection with my work in the murky world of Wikipedia articles about fake and fraudulent (or at least allegedly fake or fraudulent) educational institutions, I've encountered more than my fair share of fake (or at least dubious) organizations, including fake international organizations. This has led me to have a concern about verifying that somebody who is demonstrated to be real (and, ideally, also reputable) has documented the existence and activities of such an organization. When the organization's article is stubby, it's common for the article to list only the organization website as a source, but with a longer detailed article (like the current version of International Sociological Association), it's reasonable to expect that the article will include some citations to reliable independent sources that help substantiate the rest of the article's content. Some examples of possible independent sources about scholarly organizations are books or journal papers about the history of the organization's field of endeavour, testimonials or obituaries that document a particular member/officer's involvement with the organization, news articles about the organization's conferences, and articles about journal impact factors that discuss the organization's journals. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

PS - I didn't doubt the validity of the International Sociological Association. It's just that I've come to appreciate the value of reliable sources when confronting organizations that I was fairly sure were fake. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The circular argument is rather interesting. I tried a few of the groups I know in my field and found, like above, that while they have articles on WP, they are all sourced to documents from the organization; their internally published academic journal is only sourceable to the publication, same with their conferences, and if you start trying to find references, they tend to be from other organizations which have the same circular reasoning. Some break out of this cycle (Society of Automobile Engineers definitely is, if you check Google News), most can't

I would argue that these societies themselves should be included on WP, but the "secondary" metric is hard. As a means of brainstorming, I'd like to suggest that any such academic organization that holds a regular national/international research symposium meeting that includes abstracts and/or papers published as sources (that on WP we would consider reliable) should be considered notable for the purposes of developing an article. The logic here is that academics would need to be submitting their abstracts/papers to these conferences, meaning that the academics must consider the organization and its meetings of some value - an implicit form of recognition in the secondary sense. The publication of an abstract/paper/conference proceedings would satisfy some type of validation. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For an (in my eyes) inane deletion decision, based on a slavish following of WP:ORG, see here.  --Lambiam 00:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note WP:NONPROFIT (which I would imagine many/most learned societies would be) says: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  

• The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
• Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources."

So, it doesn't have to be extensive coverage; just "verified by". Or at least, that's how I read it. --Lquilter (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of these are not non-profit. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the independent/third-party sources don't have to be truly extensive. But they do have to be more than a passing mention. You need to have enough from the independent sources to verify something about what the rest of the world thinks about the organization and what the rest of the world thinks the group is doing. A single paragraph in two or three (100% independent) publications is often good enough. If the best you can get is a passing mention like "Alice Expert, who is also the president of The Academic Society, ought to be in bed" or "The Academic Society is holding its usual meeting at the usual place", then it does not qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia.

It might be worth reading WP:WHYN. These are not arbitrary requirements. Requiring some independent sources prevents organizations from using Wikipedia for advertising or to make the fake ones look legitimate. It also makes sure that we are presenting the rest of the world's POV rather than solely the subject's POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that several passing mentions that organization exists in reliable sources are enough to satisfy the broad coverage in reliable sources requirement? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Let me repeat that last sentence with an ellision and formatting to make it easier: "If the best you can get is a passing mention [...] then it does not qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

hmmm... I would quibble with that... I think there is a good argument for saying that having a lot of passing references to a subject can sometimes be an indication that the subject is notable. I would qualify this by requiring that the passing references be from a wide variety of sources... all independent of each other as well as the subject... but surely having hundreds of passing references would indicate some degree of notability.

Of course, if that many sources make passing reference to a subject, there is a high probably that at least one source out there discusses it in more depth... so my quibble may be a moot point.Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If all you have in the independent/third-party sources is a passing mention (a passing mention tells you very little except the name of the company), then it is not going to be possible to write an article that complies with WP:NPOV (DUE weight must be determined in independent sources) or WP:V's requirement that articles be based primarily on third-party sources. Consequently, if all you have is a passing mention, even if you have a dozen such passing mentions, then you can't actually write a policy-compliant article and therefore the subject is (apparently) non-notable/does not qualify for an article at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree... suppose we are considering whether to have an article about the "International Society of Geologists"... so we search the web and we see that hundreds of academic and industry geologists note "Member of the International Society of Geologists" in their on-line CVs. I agree that taken individually, no single CV demonstrates notability ... Yet all these passing references, when viewed as a whole, add up to something that deserves some weight... and I think when viewed as a whole they are enough to say that the society is notable. We may not be able to write more than a stub about the society... the article might never grow beyond: "The ISG is a learned society to which hundreds of academic and industry geologists belong." But we can at least say that (and I don't see any NPOV issue in saying that). Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ORG is generally opposed to pages for which "there is no realistic hope of expansion". If you can't write more than a doomed permastub, it's not actually notable. In this case, for example, there's probably a good reason to mention ISA in sociology or similar articles. Your sentene doesn't have to be on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we are back to the old debate between "presumption of notability" and "substantiation of notability" (a debate which runs through most of our notability guidelines). Would you agree with this: a society that garners hundreds of in-passing references has a presumption of notability ... however, without at least one source that discusses it in more depth, we can't substantiate that presumption and actually write an article. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know, but I think that at least in some instances, I would initially assume that such an org was notable/that it was likely that appropriate sources existed. However, once we know that we can't find any such sources, my assumption has been proven wrong and the org's best shot at wikifame is being mentioned in some larger context (per WP:FAILN). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The unwritten criteria: Consensus

Given the potential for abuse, I think this may be one of those situations where it is better to remain silent and not spell out specific criteria... and instead fall back on the one notability criteria that is (appropriately) not mentioned in any of our notability guidelines: A subject is notable if there is a broad consensus agreeing that it is notable. If you need to, consider it an application of WP:Ignore all rules. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent sources

This guideline insists on "independent" sources. But how independent are in-universe sources? For example the project astrology is currently looking into this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urania Trust, an article that is mainly backed by other astrology sources. How do we handle this? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If the source is not controlled by the organization in question, then that is independent enough for our purposes. What we're looking for is attention from people who don't have any obligation to pay attention to it, not for attention from people who are skeptical or unfriendly to the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So basically, if e.g. UFO clubs/organizations give significant mention to each other in their own publications/books/journals/websites, creating a kind of "mutual admiration society", then these organizations become notable because they get attention from "independent" sources? Even when they get no attention at all from e.g mainstream media or scholarly sources... Can we add something like that in the guideline here? I think it will be great news for a lot of fringe organizations. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing is basically correct as far as WP:ORG goes... If one organization is significantly discussed in the literature of other unconnected organizations, that is enough to say that the first organization is notable under WP:ORG (example, if the American Heart Association extensively discusses the good work that unconnected "Heart Health Advocates" does, that is enough to say that "Heart Health Advocates" is notable... even though both may be involved in similar work).

However... WP:ORG is not the only policy/guideline that applies here... I think MakeSense is correct when we factor in WP:FRINGE. That policy calls for the sources to be more than just independent... it calls for at least one mainstream source. So... when we look at the issue with both WP:ORG and WP:FRINGE in mind, we can say that having two UFO fan orgs extensively talking about each other would not be enough to call either org notable ... but if NASA extensively discusses a UFO fan org, that would be enough to call the UFO fan org notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. It is kind of natural for fringe/minority organizations to stick together and mention each other as much as they can, because they try to grow out of fringe or increase the size of their "cult". I understand what @WhatamIdoing means by "What we're looking for is attention from people who don't have any obligation to pay attention to it..", but fringe organizations are in the situation where it is in their own self-interest to mention similar other organizations within their "universe". That's also the case for organizations of religious or political nature, they mention each other (within a given religion or party affiliations) because of "mutual benefit". The "independence" of in-universe sources becomes obviously questionable in those cases. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Y

This may surprise you, but: FRINGE doesn't usually apply to articles about organizations.

It doesn't much matter how "biased" or "self-interested" the source is. What you need to write an article about an organization is facts like the date it was founded, where it is located, who is involved, and where their revenue comes from. Even if all of your sources are things like Weekly News for Gullible Idiots, you are unlikely to encounter a "fringe" POV about the organization itself. Even incredibly weak sources are likely to give you a mainstream view of the organization itself.

Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia. It is also a collection of specialized encyclopedias. If your example would merit an entry in a multi-volume, professionally written Comprehensive Encyclopedia of UFOs, then it probably merits an entry here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All nice and good. But the question is not "What you need to write an article about an organization...". The question here is what we need to establish notability for an organization. Quite a different thing.

And as far as I know, even for writing the article the very weak fringe sources are generally avoided because "reliability" may be questionable. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FRINGE does apply to articles about organizations that promote fringe theories... since you can not write an article about the organization without discussing the theory it promotes. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an extreme example to illustrate why I agree with MakeSense's concept of "In Universe" sourcing... suppose there exists a fringe religion based on worshiping Elvis as God ... This religion has a total of 100 adherents world wide. These 100 adherents, however, have doctrinal differences about how to worship... some say that one must dress the way Elvis did, others say this is optional, still others say that doing so is blasphemy. So the fringe religion is split up into rival denominational organizations (the "Church of Elvis", the "Temple of Elvis Eternal", the "True Revealed Church of Elvis", etc.) Each denomination discusses the others extensively in their literature... hurling condemnations at the others and explaining why our form of Elvis worship is correct, while their form of worship is wrong, wrong, wrong.

None of this prolific writing changes the fact that the rest of the world has not even heard of these organizations ... nor does it change the fact that the only people who comment on them are from within those organizations. It's still just 100 people, talking to and about each other. To say that any one of these denominational organizations is notable, we need someone from outside of this narrow group to notice the existence of the denomination and comment on it.

Now, it may be that a few reliable sources have commented on Elvis worship in general... enough that we can justify an article on the broader topic of Elvis worship... It will probably be appropriate to note the existence of the various sub-denominations, and their doctrinal disputes in that article (The information is verifiable by primary source literature). However, this does not mean that an individual denominational organization is notable enough to justify a separate stand-alone article about that denominational organization. Again, we need someone from outside the narrow group to notice it and discuss it. 13:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Theology vs org

Makesense, the primary goal behind notability is to exclude articles that we can't write. See the WP:WHYN section of the main guideline.

Blueboar, I like your example, but none of your sources seem to address the organization. So an article on the Presbyterian Church will say things about the organization, like the fact that they vote a lot and were founded in Scotland. So your sources sound interesting, but you can't actually write an article about the organizations involved, because your sources don't give you anything more about the organizations themselves than their names−and "notability of religious beliefs" is not covered by WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In my hypothetical, I assumed that it would be clear that the various denominations had official organizational bodies that spoke for them and published their pronouncements. But perhaps I can clarify by using the "legal" name of each body... In my hypothetical, the publications of "Church of Elvis, Inc." and "True and Revealed Church of Elvis, LTD." would not be enough to demonstrate that "Temple of Elvis Eternal, Inc." is notable. We need to show that someone outside of this narrow group of 100 people has taken note of "Temple of Elvis Eternal, Inc." Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@WAID. WP:WHYN states several other important reasons, such as reliability and independence. We certainly do not create articles just because we find enough material to write one. Fringe organizations usually exist with the main (or even) sole purpose of promoting certain fringe ideas. As such they tend to write extensively about their idea(s) and about the ideas of other similar organizations with which they have significant "overlap". They come to "synergy" very quickly, because they feel up to a big bad world which doesn't accept their ideas. That's why I think we need to question the "independence" of in-universe sources in such cases. Blueboar has understood exactly what I mean. I think a requirement to need at least one quality mainstream source (with in depth coverage about the organization), would help to separate the really notable organizations from the ones that are notable only within the given inner-circle of believers. I would call that "in-universe notability" as opposed to "general notability". MakeSense64 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I care most about is that someone has taken note of the organization rather than its members' beliefs. If the article subject is really "things believed by the members of the Temple of Elvis Eternal", then it's simply not a matter for ORG in the first place. You'd have to justify that under the general rules, and it would be hard, because attention from three tiny organizations doesn't constitute "significant attention by the world at large". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's have some sources:

From Church of Elvis, Inc.

"From what we've been taught, we believe that Elvis is an exalted man, like you and me, to whom honor is owed as a prophet, but not worship. Those heretics over at TRCE believe that Elvis is a god. When you die, if you Loved Him Tender, and if you didn't Step on His Blue Suede Shoes, then you may have His Hand in Yours after death when Elvis leads you to the True God."

From True and Revealed Church of Elvis, Ltd.

"The COE reveals their weakness in refusing to believe that Elvis is the True God. They will naturally burn for eternity in Hell. The TOEE is just a bunch of reincarnation kooks who had too much Pot and not enough Luck."

From Temple of Elvis Eternal, Inc.

"Now we believe and teach that when He died, Elvis came back in the form of a little bird that flies, and His presence is made manifest to all who look upon the Sacred Jumpsuit of the Phoenix Bird, and the Blessed Gazers may similarly become birdlike. Both the COE and the TRCE fail to understand that Elvis represents a new age and the restoration of a very old religion."

Okay: Three sources, three fringe organizations.

Did anyone see any information about the organizations in here? You could write a decent stub on the various beliefs of the Elvis folks with stuff like this, but could you actually write a single informative sentence about the organizations themselves? Anyone see a founding date in those sources? Headquarters location? Membership size? Names of key people? Ordained clergy? Structure? Titles used by senior clergy? Do they even have clergy? What's their relationship to any other religious organizations? Tax status? Budget size? Weekly attendance? Holidays or events observed? Any architecturally significant churches or other properties owned?

Those kinds of things (which you'll find in {{Infobox church}} and {{Infobox organization}}) are the basic facts about a religious organization. None of these made-up sources answer even a single question about the organizations themselves. You therefore cannot use these sources to write an article about the organizations.

You could (theoretically) use them to write an article about Beliefs held by Elvis worshippers, but whether WP:CORP isn't going to tell you whether that is appropriate, because religious beliefs are neither "organizations" nor "companies". If you want to write an article about Beliefs held by Elvis worshippers—or about Beliefs held by astrologers, or about Beliefs held by alternative medicine quacks, or anything like that—then you have to go look at the GNG, not CORP.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making? Do you understand the difference between writing an article about a religious organization and writing an article about the beliefs held by people who happen to be part of a religious organization? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Companies vs organizations

To look at this from a bit different angle. I came across this list article List of S&P 500 companies. As you will see there are several red links. So we do not have articles about some of the largest organizations in the world. E.g. this one, has almost 8000 employees but no article on wp [4].
So on the one hand we seem to put the bar rather high for companies. Being listed on a stock exchange is not enough WP:LISTED. And on the other hand we would be putting the bar very low for fringe organizations, if we consider them notable as soon as a few friendly in-universe sources give them in depth coverage. That's an amazing discrepancy, and for a casual observer it must look as if wikipedia was created from an anti-business POV, while having articles about nearly every fringe club or concept in the world. I think we should try to create a bit more balance there. Either raise the bar for fringe orgs, or lower it for companies. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the bar is almost exactly the same. The only reason that there are red links at List of S&P 500 companies is because you haven't chosen to turn them blue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding wp:gng, I tend to think that its a little biased towards coverage-heavy topics (such as sports, where we have zillions of articles on obscure people) and against coverage-lit topics. I think that companies and bands tend to get closer scrutiny because there is so much coi editing / potential commercial gain involved. But I think that its a sure thing that an article on a fortune 500 company would survive. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Do the rules about organizations also apply to religions? For example if a religion is international in scope does that make itmore notable? Pass a Method talk 08:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. The key is to determine if the organization (whether religious in function, or non-religious in function) is truly international in scope. Be wary of bogus claims of "international scope"... If the org has only twenty members, it really does not matter whether they all live in one city (meeting in one small congregation) or are scattered around the globe (meeting in multiple tiny congregations)... it is still only twenty members.

That said... as we get into larger groups (with hundreds or thousands of members) the more spread out a group is, the greater the likelihood that some reliable source (independent of the group) will have noticed it, and significantly discussed it. So there is a greater likelihood of notability with international groups than with local groups. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think its a good idea to start a new guideline similar to this but on religion? Or to expand this one to include religion? I'm asking because i have noticed such a deficiency during several religious discussions. I have already started off a section: WP:ADHERENCESTATS Pass a Method talk 14:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there is a need for a new guideline... however, I have added a caveat to the guideline regarding false claims of "international scale". It would apply to any non-commercial org... including religious ones. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen editors disregardit because it doesn't specifically mention religion. Could you specifically mention religion to counter that please? Pass a Method talk 16:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does mention religion in the lede doesn't it? Pass a Method talk 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup... it does. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the criteria on this page, is Raëlism a notable religion? This source page 232 describes 80,000 followers in 91 countries. Pass a Method talk 18:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Raëlism is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. No, they are not notable enough to be added to Church (disambiguation), inserted into the Lead image of Religion alongside major world religions, and probably not notable enough to replace the other religions at Same-sex marriage. That's probably not the answer you were looking for though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley, i have an interest in all religions which are medum-sized (between 50,000 and 1 million adherents). Raelism is only used as an eample here. I rarely ever cover religions with 100 to 10,000 members or those with more than 50 million. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, and it is a shame if not: The relative amount of emphasis Wikipedia gives to anything, including a religion, is based on the proportion of coverage found in reliable sources. This policy is found at WP:WEIGHT,

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

The number of adherents does not (directly) matter. Theoretically, a religion that has only 10 members but has massive amounts of coverage in reliable sources (as compared to other religions) would receive a lot of emphasis in our articles. In this case, a Google Scholar search shows results counts of: 1.43 Million for "Islam"... 1.12 Million for "Christianity"... 431,000 for "Judaism"... 644 for "Raelians". I would expect to find in articles or sections of articles covering religions, or the positions of religions on various topics, for Raelians not to be mentioned at all. The reason why Wikipedia appears to have an "Abrahamic religion POV" is because that proportion of emphasis is what is found in the reliable sources. Zad68 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Zad, that has been pointed numerous times, but there are so many rules on wikipedia, it becomes difficult to keep track sometimes. I also have a forgetfullness problem in real life, so. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But that policy obviously has its flaws, with the inevitable editors disagreeing with how to measure the proportion of coverage. Pass a Method talk 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, mate. There are a lot of rules on Wikipedia, and some are open to interpretation. I looked at the few places where this conversation was happening, and I didn't see anybody point this out to you before. Cheers... Zad68 22:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions specifically indicates somewhere that it tries to include any and all religions which have at least two congregations in the US (and presumably Canada) where those two congregations are not both within the same metropolitan area. It also includes in almost every article it has a bibliography of sources available discussing that group. That being said, I tend to think that there are a lot of notable organizations which are not yet covered, like, for instance, almost literally every one included in that volume, and would actively support the efforts of any editors to develop them. But the specific questions eeems to be about the Raelians, and the existing number of articles which exist unchallenged fairly clearly indicates that not only the religion itself, but those specific subjects relating to that religion, are notable. Regarding whether a religion is "more" or "less" notable, I honestly don't know exactly what is being asked there. WP:NOTABILITY was never created to address matters of WP:WEIGHT. Such matters much more directly relate to the latter page, and probably would be more relevant on that talk page. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Since when are schools exempt from notability when everything is saying they aren't?

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Siddhartha Medical College that I honestly have have gotten a little carried away in discussing, but I'm just floored by the logic being given by editors there, 9 editors have argued for keeping the article, but have not given a single guide or policy-based reason. WP:ORG specifically says schools are a type of organization covered by the guideline, and WP:ORGSIG specificaly says No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, but the only thing I'm seeing from "keep" arguments is that "the school exists, and schools are inherently notable per long-standing consensus", only nobody can actually show this consensus, and all the policies and guidelines are contradicting everything they're saying. Nobody seems willing to explain why they feel guidelines that apply to everything else on Wikipedia don't apply to schools. If this truly were the "long-standing consensus" that everyone keeps claiming, why can I not find any trace of it being an actual thing, and why are all the policies and guidelines saying otherwise? I realize that schools are almost always kept, but that doesn't somehow turn into "we don't even have to discuss it, if it's a real school, it's exempt from notability", otherwise why even have school articles at AfD? WP:ORGSIG seems to spell out pretty clearly that "schools are inherently notable" is a load of crap, or am I just missing something? - SudoGhost 13:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all this is a guideline not policy. If schools fail policy e.g. WP:V then they get deleted. You will see the header states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It is not essential, though very desirable, to meet this guideline and it should not be applied woodenly. The consensus that has emerged over many years is that primary and elementary schools are generally non-notable but high schools and tertiary institutions are notable. If you want evidence of this please look back over the numerous AfDs in recent years. The reason for this is that experience has shown that with enough local research high school articles can be made to meet WP:ORG. In many countries outside of the Anglosphere, Internet coverage of educational establishments is sparse so local searches need to be carried out and there is no time limit for these. This is important to avoid systemic bias. Though the odd one may not, common sense which editors are encourage to apply, indicates that it is much better to treat all as notable rather than spending countless person-hours trying to find the occasional exception. The notability guidelines are intended to keep the obvious nonsenses off the encyclopaedia not to eliminate articles on clearly significant subjects. For this reason we accept a whole wadge of things are notable eg; populated designated settlements, fauna and flora, super-regional malls, numbered highways, named bridges, railway stations, airports, peers of the realm and others. This pragmatic application of commons-sense allows editors to concentrate on what is important. TerriersFan (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a load of crap incorrect, if this guideline says that schools are not notable just because they are a school, then that's how it is. If this mysterious consensus you keep alluding to was real, why does this guideline say the exact opposite? WP:ORG is a guideline, but that doesn't mean "it only applies when we want it to". You cannot decide that this guideline doesn't apply to schools, that is policy, especially when this guideline specifically goes out of its way to point out that you're full of crap what you are saying is incorrect. You're ignoring policies and guidelines without giving a single reason why other than "schools just are", and that's nonsense. - SudoGhost 13:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2) I have often encountered this problem too - but usually in the context of high schools, in which case it seems to be selectively applied to only US schools - often to defend the existence of an unsourced two-sentence "article" about an unremarkable school in an unremarkable "Hicksville" town. I'm firmly in the "absolutely nothing whatsover is inherently or automatically notable" party. Roger (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In practice, it is usually quite straightforward for US high schools to be developed to meet WP:ORG because they have a good Internet presence. The difficulty comes, and this is why we must strive to avoid systemic bias, with high schools in those parts of the world that put little about educational institutions on the Internet which is why time needs to be allowed for local searches - libraries, hard-copy newspapers etc. In the instance that is causing the OP angst there is no evidence that such local searches have been carried out and found wanting. TerriersFan (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So we're adding WP:MUST to WP:ITEXISTS, and that somehow turns into "all schools are notable"? - SudoGhost 14:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the consensus being cited at the AFD is documented at WP:OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I see where it says that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions are being kept", and where it says that schools fall under WP:ORG; I can see nowhere that it says "notability does not have to be established for any schools", and I certainly see nowhere that says "Don't worry about what WP:CONLIMITED says, Wikipedia policy and guidelines don't apply to schools." If this truly is a "long-standing consensus", why are all the guidelines and policies saying the complete opposite, even going so far as to specifically point out that no organization is exempt? If this is a consensus, that schools are automatically notable, I think this guideline needs to be reflected to change that, but until that happens I don't see how AfDs should ignore wider community consensus in favor of a few people asserting that some consensus exists somewhere, and that it overrides anything anyone else says, despite policy saying they can't decide that guidelines don't apply to their articles. - SudoGhost 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I took a further look, and apparently Jimbo can't find any consensus that says this either, so it's not a matter of it just existing somewhere and me not being able to find it. - SudoGhost 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, I am firmly in the "there are loads of things that are inherently notable" party, but the OP has a point. We should put the standing consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in the relevant notability guideline, to avoid ambiguities, or promote WP:NHS from essay to guideline. --Cyclopia^talk 14:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools are not inherently notable just because they exist. However, schools are inherently presumed to be notable because of the very high likelihood that sources exist to support the article. Time and time again, whenever an article on a school has been nominated for deletion, someone has been able to produce sources that discuss it. This results in a knee-jerk "Keep" mentality whenever an article on a school is nominated for deletion.

To overcome the knee-jerk reaction, the nominator must first do an exhaustive search for sources (it is not enough to simply do a Google search)... the nomination must spell out what steps were taken to look for sources... the nominator must make it clear that he/she can not find any sources (or spell out why the sources that do exist are not enough to establish notability). It helps to acknowledge that the presumption of notability does exist ... and then demonstrate how the specific school in question fails that presumption. Present the nomination as an "exception that proves the general rule". Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, this is putting the onus on the wrong side; it has always been on those wanting to keep the article to prove sources exists, since you can't prove a negative (the lack of source). Of course, a AFD nom without any attempt at BEFORE source searching won't have any weight, but the nom shouldn't have to be doing an exhaustive search of sources before coming to that conclusion. The problem here is that those that want to keep the educational institutions have OUTCOMES to fall back on, and so realistically the only way to even challenge that is to be more exhaustive, when more practically, all we need is those wanting to keep to at least demonstrate a minimum of sources exist. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have never liked this line of thought and routinely ignore it when it comes to AfDs, honestly. I hate that hyper-handwaving-at-sources-out-there shtick. It is not upto the nominator to do "exhaustive research" to source an article they are considering for deletion; that is a ball dropped by the article creator, contributors, those interested in the subject. Should a nominator do a cursory search for sources? Of course. More than 5-10 mins? No. This isn't a job, this is volunteer work. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"This isn't a job, this is volunteer work." - True. So if you don't feel like doing it right, taking the necessary time, just don't do it and leave it to someone else to nominate articles for deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 15:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

5-10 mins is doing it right, in my opinion, and that of many others it is safe to say. Obviously the ARS diehards don't like that, but that's kinda in "tough titty says the kitty" territory. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, those volunteers creating those articles are expected to add sources to show that base policy and verifyability is met. If they don't want to do that job, they should let someone else with more time to create the articles. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And here we go again. To turn SG's "otherwise why even have school articles at AfD" argument on its head, if guidelines were as set in stone as he firmly seems to believe, why do we have AfD discussions at all? We may as well just let admins go through articles, deleting those which do not meet the guidelines (which wouldn't then actually be guidelines, of course!). We don't do this, however. We have guidelines. We have discussions. People put their opinions. People interpret the guidelines. People reach a consensus. There is no requirement for contributors to such discussions to quote a guideline or policy to show how clever they are at reading guidelines and policies. Frequently it's a case of applying common sense. In my opinion, and many others', common sense states that verifiable secondary schools and tertiary institutions are inherently notable. SG clearly disagrees and is, of course, entitled to put his opinion. Sadly he does not appear to like the fact that most other contributors disagree with him and attempts to dismiss their opinions because they do not concur with some mystical immutable rule that does not in reality exist. As to where the consensus is written, it is not written, since that is not the nature of a consensus. It is, however, summarised in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." That is not a rule, but it is a statement of fact (the truth of which will be acknowledged by anyone who watches Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools‎) and it does indicate that something of a consensus has been reached. This has been pointed out again and again to SG, but he continues to demand where the consensus is written down. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A QUICK NOTE... in the case of the Sri Siddhartha Medical College (the school that inspired this discussion), a quick Google / Google news search comes up with a LOT of sources that could be used to establish notability. So the issue of inherent notability is moot. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Or quite the opposite, depending on where you come from! ;) -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's policies and guidelines contradict everything you just said. Guidelines are a consensus. To ignore that consensus and claim that it doesn't apply to certain articles (when the consensus says otherwise) violates Wikipedia policy. That is a policy, and most assuredly does exist. Guidelines are not set in stone, that was never implied and is a horrible red herring, that does not turn into "we can decide it doesn't apply", because policy specifically says otherwise, and the guideline specifically says that school articles are not exempt from notability requirements, which again, is the result of a community consensus. These are consensuses that exist, and can be shown; the consensus you're claiming is "magically on Wikipedia, yet isn't written anywhere on Wikipedia, a written encyclopedia", doesn't exist. If it does, people are having a hard time finding it, and even if it does, policy says that it doesn't override the larger community consensus. - SudoGhost 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure why you're so fond of quoting Mr Wales's opinion, as it's no more significant than anyone else's. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The point is that this consensus you're alluding to doesn't exist, nobody's been able to find it, so this "there's a mysterious consensus that somehow overrides the rest of Wikipedia" is just a show, there's nothing behind it but a bunch of editors that want it to be real, and when these claims of "schools are inherently notable" are actually examined, they quickly fall apart under the weight of actual community consensus, guidelines, and policies. - SudoGhost 16:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not to defend OUTCOMES, but the consensus you are looking for is OUTCOMES. And arguably, most of what ends up in OUTCOMES are results of long slippery slopes that are difficult to trace; probably way back when, some school article at AFD was kept on the presumption sources could be found, another AFD later likely pointed back to that, and then that snowballs into "all schools are generally kept". The fact that it is there and that that consensus for it being there is certainly true, but it's like an old wife's tale - you're not going to be able to locate said source for its origins. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The only problem is that OUTCOMES doesn't come anywhere close to saying that "schools are always notable". It notes that "most schools are kept", but not only does that not turn into "schools are always notable", it doesn't matter how other AfDs closed when each article has to be notable in its own right. Even if the essay did say that schools were automatically notable, essays don't supersede a guideline that says otherwise, nor does it supersede a policy. - SudoGhost 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The idea that all secondary (high) schools and colleges are notable is a "de facto" rule based on 10 years of AfD discussions. Its not a subversion of our policies or an "exception" to notability, its a general "rule" of efficiency which intends to be in harmony with notability requirements. I link a bunch of that history in User:Milowent/History_of_High_School_AfDs. Essentially the consensus has been that such institutions are inherently important to their communities and thus it would unusual (but not impossible, say a diploma mill or very small school) to find one not to be notable. This is certainly the case with Sri Siddhartha Medical College, a 23+ year old degree granting medical college, which had to do some political battles to get established, which is referenced in college reference texts, etc., not to mention Kannada language sources of which I think I have found a few but would be dangerous for me to try to understand.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• This "rule" doesn't exist, that's the issue. A few editors wanting there to be this consensus doesn't make it one, and believe me I've been looking; each time it is presented to change some established policy or guideline, it gets shot down. There is no consensus that this is a rule, and in fact all the of the actual consensus-based things on Wikipedia completely contradict this "rule". Nothing in "inherently important to their communities", especially when established community consensus says that this is not true, if it is important to the community, show it. This is true for any other organization, any of which could also argue that they are "inherently important to the community", but that's not an argument to keep an article, there's no reason an educational organization is any different. - SudoGhost 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• You can say the "rule" doesn't exist all you want, I'm telling you it de facto exists. BECAUSE IT DOES. There's never been a consensus to adopt a de jure rule, and there's won't be now. Once a year or so, an individual editor does exactly what you're doing now. But as I told you yesterday, find me a college AfD where a legitimate college WAS EVER DELETED. WHERE IS IT? You can write all you want, but I've been watching this issue for over 3 years and researched the history extensively back to 2003. Did you research the archives of Vijaya Karnataka yet?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, all populated places are also considered notable, perhaps you should take on that subversion of wikipedia next!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• "de facto" apparently means "I want it to be real very much, but it's just not". There is no consensus, there is no rule, you have nothing. What we do have is a great many policies and guidelines all saying the complete opposite of what you're claiming. It doesn't matter if there's some "de facto" rule, because guess what? Wikipedia policy overrides that. It doesn't matter how many subpages you create dedicated to wanting it to be a consensus, because it's not, and never has been. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and when "de facto" assertions contradict multiple policies and guidelines, we go with what consensus has established: the guidelines and policies. (I also don't know if you've noticed, but "populated places" are not organizations, WP:OTHERSTUFF is yet another poor argument to give.) - SudoGhost 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Uh sorry, but you're totally misreading WP:CONLIMITED. CONLIMITED is meant to make it clear that even if you get locally consensus, say, to disregard WP:V for a single page, such consensus is invalid because it is overridden by the general policy. But here it is different: it's a general consensus that has been built over the years on the notability of a general subject. And that's exactly what it is meant by "Wikipedia operates by consensus": that is, what editors agree consistently to do. Also notice that our guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive (WP:GUIDES) -they happen to describe the consensus of the community, they do not rule by fiat. So, "de facto" consensus is all what matters: if guidelines are at odds with them, it's guidelines that have to change, not editors' behaviour. --Cyclopia^talk 17:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's not even close to what WP:CONLIMITED says. It says "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The fact that these editoes have failed to convince the broader community that they're correct (as evidenced by the many failed school guideline proposals and attempts to amend this guidleine). When the guideline specifically says schools must be notable, no exceptions, a few school-oriented editors cannot decide that the guideline does not apply, and that's exactly what is happening. If there is such a "general consensus", then it should be reflected by actual consensus, but it looks like every time that gets attempted, it gets shot down. As it stands though, it appears that this was attempted by a minority of editors so much that the guideline itself was amended to specifically point out that schools must be notable. "de facto consensus" doesn't mean "we can skirt around actual consensus and decide a guideline doesn't apply", that's exactly what WP:CONLIMITED is saying. There is no general consensus that schools are automatically notable, if that were the case then the actual documented consensus reflected by this guideline would reflect that, instead it is going out of its way to point out that there are no exceptions to notability, which means this "general consensus" has zero weight in an AfD discussion. - SudoGhost 17:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Also, "general consensus","de facto consensus" and the like are all just colorful ways of saying "failed consensus", because looking through relevant talk pages, that's all I'm seeing; multiple attempts to get some consensus that schools are automatically notable, and each proposal failing. If enough people repeat a failed proposal, it's still a failed proposal, and actual consensus matters much more than failed proposals colored up as "de facto". - SudoGhost 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." - Yeah, it says that. Is AFD a Wikiproject (that is, something with local scope)? I don't think so. If a Wikiproject about school was deciding that, I'd agree with you, but we're talking of years and years of AfD's, with lots of editors involved: a totally different level of generality. And also, about the failed proposals you mention (links?), I'd say the spirit of CONLIMITED works exactly against your argument, if anything: the amount of consensus gained in practice by the outcomes of years of AFD discussions is much stronger than the consensus of a bunch of editors that happen to watch this talkpage. I begin to suspect your Latin is not that good, because if you say "de facto consensus" doesn't mean "we can skirt around actual consensus and decide a guideline doesn't apply", you fail to appreciate that "de facto" means "factual, actual, real, as a matter of fact": so if the factual whole-community consensus is that the guideline doesn't apply to schools, then yes, it doesn't apply, and the guideline oughts to be amended. --Cyclopia^talk 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• If WP:CONLIMITED uses something as broad as a WikiProject as an example of something that cannot override a guideline (and the discussions suggest that it applied down to a single article), I don't think you can make the argument that a single AfD, with a much smaller scope (a single article), can do so either. Since you brought up the "spirit of CONLIMITED", it is that "when two different consensuses conflict, the broader consensus prevails". I'm at a loss how you can suggest that WP:CONLIMITED is saying that it's fine for editors at AfD to ignore the wider community consensus, because a guideline is indeed a much larger consensus than an AfD.

This "schools are automatically notable" thing isn't even a consensus, let alone a guideline, and when a large-scale general consensus (a guideline) concludes and continuously reinforces that schools are not exempt from notability requirements, editors at AfD cannot decide that this doesn't apply to that article (the only one within the scope of the AfD). Indeed, that is why "keep" arguments from fans of a particular band do not override WP:BAND at AfD, and cannot decide that it doesn't apply to their favorite band at that AfD. Such comments are usually discounted by closing admins, precisely because the larger consensus conflicts with what they are saying, and the larger consensus has more weight in a discussion; editors cannot decide that WP:ORG does not apply to an organization any more than fans of a band can decide that WP:BAND doesn't apply to their band, short of actually changing the larger consensus. - SudoGhost 18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think you can make the argument that a single AfD, with a much smaller scope (a single article), can do so either." - I didn't explain myself, I was assuming we both knew what I was referring to. My fault. Yes, a single AFD certainly does not trump anything. But ten years of AfDs, steadily showing an overwhelming keep consensus for schools, where probably hundreds of different editors have been involved yes, that does and shows global consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now I understand, but that is also not an effective method to circumvent an established consensus. If 500 organization AfDs are kept, that means that 500 organizations were found to be notable. That does not mean that organizations are then exempt from having to establish notability, each article must be notable on its own merits, how other AfDs close are immaterial to that. A consensus to keep an article at AfD is nothing more than exactly what it sounds like, a consensus to keep an article at AfD. 10,000 AfDs are nothing more than the same thing; small consensuses do not add up to create this "ghost consensus" that overrides the larger established consensus. WP:CONLIMITED does not make a caveat that if you repeat a small consensus enough times, that it becomes more prominent than the larger consensus.

An AfD consensus has a scope of exactly one article (unless it's a multi-AfD). Each AfD has that singular scope, and cannot make decisions on a larger scale. If many AfDs turn out the same way, that may indicate that the larger consensus should be discussed and changed if appropriate, but it's nothing more than an indication, not a nullification of a community consensus. If that indication is rejected by the larger community discussion, that shows that this indication was not what it seemed to be; an acceptance of this small consensus at individual AfDs. If many AfDs are kept because the subjects are found to be notable, that does not mean that notability is no longer an issue for any subsequent AfDs, especially without an actual discussion specifically on that topic at a location that specifically handles a larger scope than a single article. A guideline is a larger consensus than an AfD, even though there are only a handful of guidelines related to organizations and 500,000 actual organization articles, the guideline is still the larger consensus, because it is done on a larger scale and carries more weight than any local consensus. - SudoGhost 19:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

" If many AfDs turn out the same way, that may indicate that the larger consensus should be discussed and changed if appropriate, but it's nothing more than an indication, not a nullification of a community consensus. " You have a weird concept of community consensus IMHO: I'd say that ten years of AfD steadily pointing always in the same direction are, indeed, as much "community consensus" as you may conceivably ask. If anything, is much more representative of the community at large than people discussing at a RfC or guideline talk page. A guideline is a larger consensus than a single AfD, but it is equal or smaller consensus that a whole truckload of AfD's along years. In other words, guidelines mostly describe and crystallize the general practices that consistently are followed out of many independent individual cases: so actually a guideline or policy is meant to follow these, as a quick "that's what we usually do here". --Cyclopia^talk 23:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This "ten years of AfD" thing is both inaccurate and misleading, and if it truly were a consensus, why is it that you're unable to change the relevant guideline to reflect this supposed consensus? Not only that, why is the guideline going out of its way to say that schools are not automatically notable? Ten years ago elementary schools were all kept, so what happened? Why didn't the "ten years" thing hold any weight there? Why didn't the "ten years of AfD" thing change what this guideline says? Surely there's a reason the consensus here is that schools are not exempt from notability, if this "ten years" thing was accurate, why is the actual spelled out consensus saying the opposite? Why is it that every time this "schools are automatically notable" thing is discussed, it turns out that isn't actually a consensus, it's a few editors repeating themselves.

Ten years of AfDs saying "this particular article is notable" does not turn into "we don't need notability on articles", that's not what these "ten years of AfDs" are showing. An AfD, which has a scope of a single article, cannot dictate what another article does. It doesn't matter how many AfDs there are, none of them can dictate what another article does, because that's not the purpose of an AfD, but that is the purpose of a guideline or other larger community discussion. You're claiming that there's a consensus, yet when it's put to the test where it actually matters, it fails under the weight of actual discussion. Until you get the guideline to change, that's not a consensus, it's a failed proposal at best. - SudoGhost 23:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment It'd be a nice courtesy if the relevant wikiproject/s, like WP:WPSCH, could be notified of discussions like this. I have now done so. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that there's an issue with WP:OUTCOMES, in particular to the reflexive keep/delete based only on whether the school is a primary school or a secondary school. This means that secondary schools which are relatively unknown get automagically (spelling deliberate) get kept, and primary schools that are highly ranked, influenced politics or society outside its region to a high degree get deleted.

There are very few organisations with the same level of influence on their communities as schools. Many established settlements in the developed world are built around some combination of infrastructure and services, often including schools. There are some settlements in Australia which, from the perspective of someone driving through, seem to be a couple of houses and a school. Further, most people have attended a school for a sizable portion of their lives. WP:NGO says that org's (i.e., educational systems or schools) should be considered notable if there is national significance. Therefore, on the basis of their societal impact, schools, or at least schooling systems (such as regions, networks or districts), should be notable. The coverage issue is relatively non-important, because schools often get mentioned. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing where WP:NGO says anything about national significance, but at any rate there is a difference between the concept of schools being nationally significant and a single school in particular being nationally significant; I don't doubt the first one is true, but the second one would need reliable sources to verify that kind of claim, which is (I believe) what WP:NGO is saying when it says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." - SudoGhost 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said school regions. For example, the schools of the Western NSW region (the "outback") don't receive much coverage, but together I'd argue that there still needs to be an article for the region (rather than single schools) because of the impact of schooling generally (and there's likely to be enough coverage to justify that article). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)