Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 7

1. Apparently,
   consensus changed
   on that point. ORG requires some kind of evidence that independent sources have noticed the organization. These sources do not have to be conveniently available, but there must be some plausible reason for editors to believe that the sources exist.
2. Yes, ORG actually rejects the idea of inherited notability. Only those organizations that independently meet the requirements of ORG qualify for separate articles.
3. No, it doesn't. If you merge the four sentences at
   WP:SPLIT is well-understood page. WhatamIdoing (talk
   ) 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there seems to be confusion here. These are not individual chapters, these are member societies. There is a distinct difference. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is correct. As an example, consider Royal_Union_of_Belgian_Radio_Amateurs. This is a national society. It appears to have ten individual chapters, see page with individual chapter locations. Some national associations may have only one chapter, such as Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society, perhaps because Hong Kong is a small place and members can gather together in a single location. The discussion here is only of national societies, not "chapters." You cannot form a local club ("chapter") and gain IARU recognition, apparently. Only national societies may affiliate, only one per nation.
• The U.S. member society of the IARU is the
  talk
  ) 00:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• as an analogy,
  UN. 70.29.210.242 (talk
  ) 08:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of the two changes that Abd reverted:

My goals are:

1. To educate the readers that there are three independent sets of criteria;
2. To forestall any misunderstandings that all three must be met (of the "well, you met the alternate criteria, but you didn't meet GNG, so I !vote delete" type);
3. To remind all the people that didn't read the top of the page that organizations that have never received any sort of notice are not notable.

Does anyone object to the substance of the changes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My only objection is that I feel the company should meet

talk · contribs

) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Noble goals, but the problem is that in clarifying the guideline, the general case has indeed been more adequately explained, but possible exceptions have been definitively excluded, and that, in fact, should never be done in guidelines, which document existing practice, so that editors can know what to expect, but do not define and control it. It is the apparent rigidity of the exclusion that caused me to revert this change, and not some idea that the change is entirely incorrect. I'll suggest alternate language later if nobody else does.

By the way, good work, WhatamIdoing. --

talk

) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, have you read the alternate criteria? Unlike (apparently) some of the other SNGs, there's nothing on this page that supports zero-source notability claims.

Abd, all guidelines should be (and are) implemented with 'common sense and the occasional exception'. We don't have to restate that fact in every section. Additionally, I think that the 'apparent rigidity' describes actual practice in AfDs fairly well. Perhaps, though, if most of this works for you, you would restore anything that you don't object to, so we could easily identify and focus on the specific area of disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is making "zero-source" notability claims, that's a red herring. It's correct that we don't have to "mention the fact," but we should avoid categorical statements that appear to rule out any exceptions, because these can and will be cited in AfDs and elsewhere, adding to confusion. I see many AfDs closed contrary to the assertion of this rigid rule, but that, of course, could merely be a reflection of the chaotic nature of AfD. As to restoring what I don't object to, that's my plan, and I'll do it ASAP. I don't however, edit a guideline without careful consideration and review, except possibly as a BRD edit making discussion more efficient. --

talk

) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one criteria that gives an appearance of allowing unsourced notability claims, that of an organization being national or international in scope. The scope of an organization should not dictate notability. There are unnotable organizations which are "national" in scope.--

talk · contribs

) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and that clarifying that apparently comment misunderstanding is one of the changes that Abd reverted yesterday.

The (old, and current) text says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both [emphasis added] of the following standards:

Merely being (or claiming to be) national in scope is insufficient: the alternate criteria requires sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that being national or international in scope alone establishes notability. A very limited claim is being made, suggested as establishing a very limited kind of notability: a national organization, also a recognized member of a notable and international organization, which already has its own article, allowing the use of stubs as one solution to the problem of how to present verifiable information about the individual national member associations, where it is determined -- by editorial consensus at the international association article -- that stubs are, under the circumstances, a better solution than simply having a list in the international article or a "list of" article. The most likely cause of this would be where verifiable information exists in detail that would be impractical to present adequately and efficiently in the parent article(s), because of limitations on article size should it be done evenly with all member societies.

This is status quo, apparently, except that because of strict interpretations of GNG and ORG, these stubs may get challenged at AfD, causing, then, debate over individual notability, which is the basic issue at AfD, or should be.

Note that the fundamental argument that fully independent notability is required, and the insistence on independent sources, is based on principles that do not apply in the case examined here. The general principle is that self-published material cannot establish the notability of an organization, and that if no other information exists, there is no independent source available to determine what is allowed in the article. However, once organizational notability is established, through independent sources, the organization's own material about itself may then be used, with caution, and this is routinely accepted. In the case here, the notability proposed is of the international association, clearly, and what is being suggested is that each of the stubs is an expression of that notability, allowing one possible means of organizing legitimately sourced text, with the default source, justifying what is in a stub, being the international organization's own publications or those of the member society, just as all these could be used in the article on the international organization or a List article.

And then we would look at whether or not there is any harm in allowing the stubs. None has been asserted, the claim being made is quite simple, so far: it is prohibited. That's circular. Both the nominator of these AfDs and WhatamIdoing are to be congratulated for helping raise this issue, precisely because they have voiced a common opinion that I believe should be more closely examined. --

talk

) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the flat structure of Wikipedia. Instead of

talk

) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored some of what WhatamIdoing had changed, this is what I have now:

(Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations)

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. Organizations are considered notable if they meet the sourcing requirements of

1. these alternate criteria, and/or
2. the primary criteria, and/or
3. the
   general notability guideline
   .

Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated.

At this point, I'd say, the general disclaimer at the end should probably stand. At any time, someone might come up with an alternate means of establishing notability, and the assumption that Wikipedia runs by strict rules is so common that it's worth regular reminder that it is not. I left the categorical statement about "no organization is considered notable except...." because that is an efficient and accurate summary of what notability means in general. A possible exception, under discussion here, doesn't change that in substance. The

talk

) 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. About the single sentence ("Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated") difference:

My question is how editors can 'otherwise demonstrate' notability if they haven't been able to demonstrate it in the three systems presented there. We give them three methods for demonstrating notability, and this sentence seems to say, "Oh, and there's a fourth method (or possibly many more), but we're not telling you what it is, because it's a secret." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask a question, get an answer: whether we can imagine how they could do it or not is moot. The Wiki Universe is vast and possibilities are beyond our capacity of full expectation, and defacto policy is that we do not tie up the editorial community with rigid rules unless there is clear necessity. I.e., policy. There is no secret. There is admission of ignorance and incapacity, that we cannot possibly think of everything, and if we did attempt this, the guideline would become a serious Tome. Instruction creep. --

talk

) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So you can't actually think of a fourth way to "otherwise demonstrate" notability outside of the named guidelines, but you believe that a fourth way might possibly exist, and therefore you want to include a sentence that asserts its existence?

It seems to me that we would be providing misleading information and false hope to editors by asserting that such a fourth way exists.

I am willing to avoid text that closes off the possibility of a fourth way coming into existence, but I am not willing to imply the existence of a fourth way unless we know what that fourth way is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I proposed and self reverted a new paragraph covering the issue that has been under discussion, that could clarify and prevent unnecessary dispute at AfD. This follows the paragraph on splitting, which is more limited, I suggest an option which may be followed when editors determine that simple, case-by-case splitting would be cumbersome, and reflects existing practice, apparently. This is the proposed text:

• Where there is a notable international organization with many member societies of national scope, and where the parent article would become excessively large or cumbersome if the local chapter guidance above is followed piecemeal, the use of
  stubs
  on the member societies may be considered. These may be considered sufficiently notable for stubs as being themselves national in scope, and with recognition by the international society showing independent notice and verification.

This is very specific and creates no barn door to fly strange craft through. The decision would remain top-down, at the parent article, as currently suggested, and maverick attempts to create individual articles would then be quickly popped back to the parent article. --

• Oppose I don't care about the top-down/bottom-up distinction: No independent sources means no separate articles. Notability is not inherited for organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: the proposed text allows use of the official international organization's publications as an independent source; they are clearly independent from the national organization which would be the subject of the stub, and they show notability, particularly due to the exclusive national character of the national society (this cannot multiply out of control). It does satisfy the literal meaning of the existing guideline, and is actual practice. There are two bases for the notability of the stub: national organization (not local) and verifiable information from independent reliable source, the international organization's official material being reliable for this purpose. If there is other reliable source on the national organization, this guideline change would not be needed for that particular article, but it will avoid useless debate in more marginal cases if accepted. --

talk

) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that any discussion at AfD would accept, say, the website of the

UCSF Medical Center

, or that any parent corporation is going to be accepted as an independent source for an article about its wholly owned subsidiaries.

These entities may well be notable, but the parent/owner/partner/affiliate's notice of itself is not evidence of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Generally, the national organizations are independent from the international organization. They certainly have connections, and they are certainly "friendly." But a notable international organization's recognition of a national organization, I'm suggesting, does create notability for it. Before that recognition, except for completely independent reliable source, there was no basis for notability. With it, there is. I can't just set up a radio club and apply for recognition by the International Amateur Radio Union. They would refer me to the American Radio Relay League which is the national organization for the United States, which would certainly, if I met its standards, recognize my club. But my club be national in scope and would not qualify my club under the present or proposed guideline. The only one of the examples given that might qualify would be the Afghan Red Crescent Society. Yes, even if there were no other sources, the ARCS would qualify for a stub based on the guideline, assuming that it is legally independent, is national in scope, and is recognized by the notable international organization, being described in the international organization's publications.

Calling the international organization the "parent" is perhaps misleading. Generally, the international organization did not create the national ones, the situation is the other way around. The national organizations created the international union. If examples exist where an international organization created and controls the national organizations, that could be a different case. So perhaps we should say "independent national society"? Generally, the international society has no legal control over the national ones, nor does any individual national society control the international, except, with the example before us, the

talk

) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the

talk

) 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

The fact that

WP:CITE any independent sources does not demonstrate that no independent sources exist. AfD is not a clean-up board: editors should not nominate even a zero-source article for deletion if they honestly believe that the sources exist. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose per WhatamIdoing. Every member of an organization is not necessarily notable, and if the parent article is that bloated, then maybe someone should look at culling out all the unnecessary stuff that was shoved in there (i.e. such detailed coverage on every member/chapter/etc). Notability is not inherited, and just because one group is part of organization X does not make them notable. --
  talk · contribs
  ) 14:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This does not address the proposal, which is not to make "every member" or "group" notable, but only national groups, based on the international organization's exclusive recognition, eligible for a stub with the international recognition and national scope as the basis. This isn't something new, it is a clarification of the guideline, reflecting rough status quo. In the one case alone,

talk

) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, I think we are addressing the proposal; you, on the other hand, aren't seeing the implications for your proposed text, beyond getting a free pass for the current mess at AfD. This rule actually says: If

Apple, Inc. recognizes its legally separate national group, Apple Canada, Inc., then Apple Canada, Inc.

deserves its own article -- simply for existing, even if nobody except the international organization ever gave the Canadian corporation a second thought.

Apple, Inc.

is clearly a "notable international organization" and Apple Canada, Inc is clearly a "member of national scope." That's what your text says, even though it might not be what you meant.

Additionally, you are attempting to declare inherent notability, and we're rejecting that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is preposterous, I'm afraid. The proposed criterion is in the section on non-commercial organizations, the intention is to handle international bodies like the

ICRC

or the Federation, that recognize and confer status on national organizations; and the application is such bodies where there are many national organizations, each one national in scope (IARU will only recognize one society per nation; national societies then recognize local chapters or associations, typically with very easy standards; this guideline would establish no notability for local chapters. The IARU does not organize or control member societies, though they do, as part of the application process, promise to observe the rules for members.

I propose considering the specific application to the IARU. If that example is rejected, then there is no use discussing the general case. However, if the IARU application is accepted, but there is something wrong with the statement I wrote, it should be properly specified so as to cover a good case, but not create some loophole. (Note that, while it's controversial, rough consensus seems to be that the national members are, in fact, sufficiently notable for articles, ipso facto, and guidelines should follow actual practice.)

The notability proposed is not "inherent," which is an imprecise term. Rather, it is notability established by the satisfaction of specific criteria. The section current says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

Notice "usually notable." The text proposed uses similar qualifying language: "may be considered." If one is "inherent," so is the other. But neither are actually inherent. All the proposal does is to clarify an issue of sourcing for such national societies. The general argument against allowing articles on societies with little sourcing is that the information in the articles is not then verifiable. But in this case, there is no verifiability issue, nobody has claimed that information from the IARU about national members cannot be cited in articles. The tail is wagging the dog, here. --

talk

) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, it's not really preposterous to use

Apple, Inc.

as an example: We use the same basic principles for both non-commercial and commercial organizations. Apple Canada is a legally 100% separate organization from Apple Inc.

So far, your fellow editors have rejected the claim that a member is independent of the group it belongs to. We'd probably say the same thing about Barack Obama and the US Democratic Party, too: closely related people and organizations simply are not independent of each other.

The fact that IARU's recognition of its members is not considered 'independent' certainly does not prove that the members are not notable: It only indicates that evidence of the notability needs to come from some other source. I fully believe that this evidence does exist for at least many of the members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I doubt that anyone neutral would support the idea that the proposed guideline has anything to do with the relationship of Apple, the U.S. corporation, parent company to Apple Canada. The proposal is in the section on noncommercial organizations! Secondly, it could be argued that the member is now related. However, the act of admission was a vote by an organization that the member society did not belong to, and, further, this is reported by officials of that international society, who were not elected by vote involving this new member.

The society is not a political party, a closer analogy would be the United Nations and member states. If the U.N. voted to admit some obscure island claiming status as a nation, damned straight that would establish notability for a stub! The significance of this would require more sources, but primary sources can be used to establish stubs of the kind actually being used. As to my fellow editors rejecting the position, I see the opposite. I see a couple of editors here and at WP:RSN partially accepting and partially rejecting, indicating further discussion is needed. I see editors (more than not) voting Keep for the articles in question. Some of these are long-time, experienced editors. Including myself, by the way.

As to finding additional sources, part of my argument is that such recognition (of a national organization by a notable international body) is better considered as if it established intrinsic notability, though a rigid rule on this would be no better than a rigid rule against it. Here is the thinking: for large national societies, it is largely moot (though it is amazingly hard to find strong sources for Radio Club of America, which is not only large, it may be the oldest radio society in the U.S., if not the world, I'm working on it), but for small societies, which with IARU membership means small nations, or undeveloped ones, recognition by a serious international organization like the IARU would be almost certain to be noticed by local press at the time. For most members, though, this is pre-internet, and we often don't know exactly what language would be used, and the newspapers in question may not have any kind of accessible archive yet. However, it is a near certainty that all actions of the IARU admitting new members were reported in QST, as they are now, so it is just a matter of finding that reference.

I've argued that

talk

) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Intrinsic" or "inherent" notability is not supported by this guideline -- full stop, no exceptions, no special pleadings. If no independent sources exist(!), anywhere in the world, then the organization simply is not notable.

If the UN recognized some tiny government, the government would become notable through the action of the news stories about the UN's recognition, and not by the act of recognition itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Notice. I opened a discussion of the Reliable Source issue at
  talk
  ) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to find an answer to this, so for give me for what might be a FAQ, but I've noticed a few organizations that are mentioned on Wikipedia in contexts that implies they are notable in their own right, ie not just as an attribute of something which is notable. DominicConnor (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Never. Wikipedia is not here to confer notability on anyone. Any unnotable organization articles, they should be nominated for deletion or tagged with CSD A7. --

talk · contribs

) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dominic, could you give us an example?

AnmaFinotera is right: the fact that an organization is mentioned on Wikipedia is 100% irrelevant to whether it is notable. However, there are many organizations mentioned on Wikipedia that are notable, even though nobody has (yet) bothered to write an article about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an indirect effect of material appearing in Wikipedia conferring notability: The writer of the next book or magazine or newspaper article about the subject is likely to look it up, among other sources, in Wikipedia, since we have longer articles about most topics than other encyclopedias and compare very favorably (in length at least) with reference books, magazines, or newspapers discussing the topic. The writer may then incorporate references, factoids, or even text from Wikipedia. Many times I have found a source on some obscure topic at Google Books and started to use it in Wikipedia, only to find that Wikipedia was identified as the source for the material in the book. Only if they crib and do not credit us as the source do they look "independent and reliable." Edison (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How should "independence" be judged? For example the organization

Just changed the lede to "third party" rather than "independent", to reflect the wording of

Insider201283 (talk

) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent/third-party as in not directly related to them. So press releases don't count, nor would I say "coverage" from a corporate sponsor would count towards notability (that doesn't make it an unreliable source, but alone I don't think it can establish notability). Is anyone who is not financially benefiting from the company talking about it? Newspapers, media outlets, books, etc. --

talk · contribs

) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re that article, so far I've found a deal of coverage in a couple of books, a 5 page magazine spread on the company and it's founders, plus a couple of newspaper reports. The notability of the particular article doesn't need the World Vision stuff as it's pretty in the clear there (except to one other editor - some comments on

Insider201283 (talk

) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say more direct financial benefit - i.e. a parent company, part owner, etc. Newspapers, because they do carry advertising, can't be considered to be financially tied to the companies that buy their advertising since that doesn't influence the stories, and they can always say "no, I won't carry your ad", versus a part owner which can't say "today I don't own you" :-) --

talk · contribs

) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so can a charity be considered "financially tied" to it's sponsors? Unless it was a majority I'd say no. Just to note, in the example that got me thinking it's not "coverage from a corporate sponsor", it's the other way around, a charity covering one of it's sponsors/donors. Clearly there's a relationship, but as per the advertising comment, where is the line drawn? Hmm on the other hand ... given the charity has millions of sponsors, it could be argued that a major charity "covering" some particular sponsors speaks to notability - virtually because of the financial connection. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Charities are a different ball game, since they can be sponsored by many companies. In the end, it comes down to basically using some common sense and, that any notable organization should have coverage outside of anyone related to it. If the only one talking about a charity is a sponsor, or visa versa, it isn't very notable. --

talk · contribs

) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though I've pretty much convinced myself that it does contribute towards notability, unlike say a press release or other self-published work. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just money that matters. Editors need to consider all the facts and circumstances. A 'news article' that is written by a public relations agency is never truly independent, even if the newspaper never receives any money from the subject. There are many forms of non-financial conflicts of interest.

I'm reminded of a common bit of small-town corruption: In a town I once lived in, the police 'randomly' selected the same upscale grocery store and the same wine shop for alcohol sales stings several years in a row -- but never once sent anyone to the bar where the high school students were known to drink. Why? Well, nobody "really" knows -- maybe it was pure chance -- but the owner of said bar had been good friends with the police chief since high school, and the bar hired the staff of the local newspaper as barkeepers.

Reports from a system like that is entirely suspect, without any money changing hands. Of course, we will probably not be able to identify such articles very often, but when we can, they should be excluded as non-independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite a plethora of industry and local media coverage, I don't see how this company is notable enough to warrant an article; and also there's been a heavy amount of COI input and deletion/censorhip. Please see User_talk:Ctremewen#COI_on_Saltspring_Coffee to the COI contributor, and User_talk:Maclean25#Saltspring_Coffee_is_notable.3F to another experienced editor who removed the notability tag for the second time....Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Radio

• In a great many AFDs, and television broadcasting stations of varying notability have come up for AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media gives the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as shown by the results of those AFDs. Policy on Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the consensus of the community actually is, from the input of thousands of participants in AFDs. That section of outcomes states:

• Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as
  TVOntario
  .)
• Internet radio stations are usually kept as notable if they can demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence.
  Peercast
  stream with three listeners is not.
• Satellite radio channels on
  WorldSpace are kept, but if they merely relay an existing conventional broadcast service such as Fox News or Deutsche Welle
  , then the satellite service should be written about as part the existing service's article rather than as a separate article.
• Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable.

I propose that a discussion be held here to determine if there is a consensus that preceding language, making the change from "are usually kept" to "are usually considered notable," or some variation, such as the essay portion Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Broadcast media, should be included in this guideline. One goal of this proposal is to achieve a consensus and meeting of the minds here rather than refighting the battle from scratch for every AFD of every low power radio station somewhere. Certainly if there is to be a real discussion the proposal would need to be publicized in appropriate forums. Edison (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• All of what you are saying is good. But once a section gets too expansive, then splitting would obviously commence. If a broadcasting station is so insignificant, then I am all for merging and redirecting with history in tact if there is any. Now what length does a broadcasting station have to be in existence to be considered notable? That is an issue that needs to be addressed as well. Mr. C.C.
  Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!}
  02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be discussion, where should notice be given so that all who might be interested in participating hear of it? I am certainly not interested in canvassing. I have posted a friendly notice of this on the talk page of every editor who !voted or commented in AFDs for radio stations (didn't see any for TV stations) back to January 22. Edison (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you hoping to change text here, or at OUTCOMES?

Are you aware that OUTCOMES has no force (i.e., is not a policy or guideline) and no method for determining whether the purported facts in it are actually true? (If you haven't read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Citing_this_page_in_AfD, then I recommend it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, this is not an AFD. As for the accuracy of the cited article, it reflects what I have seen in AFDs for broadcast stations. "These "Outcomes" have been cited as precedent in AFDs, and I would be surprised if a "licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming" got deleted, unless perhaps it were a part time micropower student-run station, or something that broadcast church services to the neighborhood once a week. A 1000 watt station which operated from 1940 to 1950 would be very unlikely to get deleted. A low power TV "repeater" station which did not originate any of its own programming, or a low power unlicensed station which broadcast to one building would be very unlikely to get kept in AFD. If there are conflicts between how AFDs always come out, and guidelines, the guidelines should be examined for possible updating. If some class of things seem to be AFD-proof, such that a nomination of one would be considered "disruptive," (such as a major market television station), then perhaps that should be noted in guidelines. I see outcomes as "descriptive" of the consensus or "defacto" as to what things are notable, based on the consensus of editors at AFDs. Guidelines should be descriptive of current practice and not just "proscriptive," representing the opinions of editors on a talk page like this as to what "should" be notable. The outcomes are very useful input to updating a guideline to reflect the present consensus. Per

Wikipedia:GUIDELINE,"Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." The consensus springs from outcomes and discussion here. We could try and establish a succinct addition to this notability guideline, or continue to have long drawnout battles at every AFD about some marginal station. Edison (talk

) 03:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page should match actual practice.

Do you think that there are any stations that meet the criteria on your list above, but don't comply with the

WP:CORP#Primary criteria? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For commercial broadcast stations, there are very likely independent secondary sources, such as the local newspaper with significant coverage. It may take some digging through offline newspaper files to find them. For nonlocal sources, there is usually coverage in the trade press when ownership changes, format changes, or there are scandals. There is a very reasonable presumption of there being coverage to satisfy GNG for commercial stations, such that in AFDs I have not seen any deleted, ha few have been merged to an article on the same station with different call letters. In other words, such commercial stations likely satisfy GNG, but time is required for each to find those references. For licensed community stations or school stations or church stations with a few watts of FM power, there have been claims of "blanket" or "inherent" notability coming from the license if they originate some of their own programming. Having independent coverage may depend on whether the operators bothered to call on the local newspaper or TV station and do an interview segment. Many pirate stations were deleted for failing to have independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, but some which thus satisfied GNG were kept. I've started an annotated listing of broadcast station AFDs at User:Edison/Broadcasting station AFD listing. which I will expand, to see how the borderline or marginal notability stations fared. Having a license and originating some programming is a convenient "bright line," but some might insist on multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. As I said, the larger operations likely have that,but it can be a project to dig it up. Some college stations may only have coverage in the college paper, or some community stations might only have directory listings and coverage in the local paper. This seems like a good forum to decide how we deal with those marginal cases. Edison (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What I understood from your reply is that, as a general rule, no change is necessary to get the "right" outcome at AfD (to keep articles about notable stations).

The change, instead, is intended to reduce your workload by preventing the (mis)use of AfD as clean up. Your mechanism for doing this is to declare the inherent notability of all licensed stations, including those stations that are reasonably believed not to have received any "notice" from independent sources (e.g., because the small station didn't choose to be interviewed by the local newspaper).

Is my summary reasonably correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AFDs cite the essay section

WP:BROADCAST. Translators/100%rebroadcasters would generally redirect to the programming source. Edison (talk

) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is interesting, but didn't tell me what I need to know.

Right now, with the existing written advice, is AfD making the right choices (in your opinion)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My Plan, Same Topic

I think the lauguage of the new "Radio Stations are Notable" policy, be it at

• All FM, AM, and LP stations with an FCC license classifing it as "Licensed" are notable and allowed, this would include current and defunct radio stations that were FM, AM, or LP.
  • There would be a very small number of FM stations that would be redirected to larger pages. Wholesale 24-7-365 affiliates of religious networks like
    Air 1
    would be redirected to the parent network. IF the station broadcasts programming outside the religious network (like local news, sports, music, etc.) then they could be considered for a seperate article, but with sources to show the station is away from the network for a set amount of time.
    • Stations airing programming from
      Dial Global
      , and other music satellite networks would be exempt from this rule and notable for a seperate page.
      • Talk stations airing programming from
        Premiere Radio Networks
        and others would also be exempt.
        • Sports stations getting programming from
          Sporting News Radio
          or any other national sports radio network would also be exempt from this rule.
• FM, AM, and LP stations that are not yet classified by the FCC as "Licensed" not "not yet notable" and should be moved to the creator's userspace. As soon as the FCC classifies the station as "Licensed", then and only then will the station become notable on Wikipedia, allowing it to have an article, which can then be moved from the creator's userspace.
• FM translators (think K222AA or W222BB kinda stations) that just rebroadcast programming would have a redirected page to the parent station or network and would be not notable.
• CC and MW stations may be brought up for discussion as they would not share the same notability as FM, AM, and LP.
• Unlicensed stations are flat out not notable as previous discussions has dictated, this would include Part 15 stations and pirates, as well as internet broadcasters...unless they have extensive third-party sources (ed. note: We would need to clarify how "extensive" the sources should be.). This would also go with Edison's idea above about
  Peercast
  stream with three listeners is not"...had to user Edison's lauguage on that one, just too good.
• Notability would not be classified by any type of ratings, listenership or popularity scale. An FCC license that says the station is "Licensed" (meaning broadcasting) would be the only thing needed to make the station notable as per above.
• (ed. note: stealing this from Edison's idea above cause it is good.) Satellite radio channels on
  WorldSpace are kept, but if they merely relay an existing conventional broadcast service such as Fox News or Deutsche Welle
  , then the satellite service should be written about as part the existing service's article rather than as a separate article.

• Now note, I did not include Television Stations in mine. This is not cause I don't think they are notable, on the contrary, I do think they are notable. I just focused on radio stations in my plan. Edison's and mine could be combined into one if need be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the 24/7/365 religious stations have histories outside of being a total rebroadcaster, plus almost every statioon has their own article specific links to Radio-Locator, history websites, FCC databases and the like (such as infoboxes). The only stations that should be grouped (with redirects from call letters) are the massive amounts of state/university run public radio outlets and commercial simulcasts of more than 2 or 3 stations; other than that the 2 proposals above I support. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 04:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Popularity isn't a good judge for notability. A radio station can be immensely popular in its local coverage area, but that out of that coverage area, not many may care about it. Internet stations are not licensed by the FCC and there are some that are notable. As well, some older stations maybe notable for being licensed, but outside of that may have done nothing to be notable. Some newer stations could be more notable outside of being licensed. Somethings we have to address. Mr. C.C.
  Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!}
  04:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am commenting because some one asked me to. I do not see a distinction between Radio and TV, but am confining my comments to radio. I am in UK and thus not concerned with US issues - and I presume the FCC is a US licensor or regulator. I will only pouint out that WP is not a US-encyclopaedia. In UK, the relevant authorities periodically licence an operator for a short period (eg a month) and only for a very local coverage (due to transmitter power). I would suggest that such stations are NN. Accordingly there will be radio stations that are NN. The question is where to draw the line. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer: Well, we could have seperate rules for the US, Canada, and the UK since their respective government organizations run differently and it wouldn't be fair to put US rules on UK stations or UK rules on Canadian stations. We could institute rules for other countries as needed per their government rules and such.
  • To answer your question, the FCC or Federal Communications Commission is the regulatory body that licenses all US (and US territory) stations. Normally licenses run for 8 to 10 years (not sure which) and then they are renewed. It is a constant process. The Canadians are covered by a similar body called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or CRTC. It is essentially the Canadian's version of the US's FCC. Not sure how long the licenses up there are in effect for, but there is a rule that Canadian stations must play 30% Canadian artists and musicians. No clue on how the UK operates their radio stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• If I am understanding the proposal, it is to claim that any licensed radio station is notable? If so, I strongly oppose. If it is notable, it will be notable by normal means: significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and I don't mean some small town station talked about only in the same town's small newspaper. Not every station is notable, and being licensed is relatively meaningless and not at all evidence of notability. --
  talk · contribs
  ) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  That is what I seek to determine. Does having any FCC or equivalent license grant inherent notability, or not, considering U.S. "community" or "class D"or "low power" broadcasters or UK "restricted" broadcasters, or equivalents in other countries? On the other hand, a presumption of notability for TV station or a powerful commercial broadcast station would just be the presumption that multiple reliable and independent sources likely exist, even if not readily available online, and would dissuade a host of pointless AFDs. Edison (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I think they all should be notable or all not. Because if we have "half-notability", we will have the MAJOR stations like KZLA, WABC (AM)...essentially the big city stations as notable and stations that do have local credit and long histories getting the ax. So what if some NYC station gets national coverage, is it anymore notable than some LP station in Montana that was featured in the New York Times? No. All stations (and this is backed up by precedence here on Wikipedia) have been allowed to have inherent notablity. All this discussion is doing is putting that "nod-in-agreement" notability into policy. When we start deciding what is notable and what isn't in radio, then it will start in other corners of Wikipedia. What books are notable, what germs are notable...do we need some obscure germ, lets mention only the major ones...see, a slippery slope for all of Wikipedia. Focusing on something major would make Wikipedia less and less of an encyclopedia and more of a website of "things that are really really important". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

    • Edison, this guideline does not currently support "inherent notability" for anything. Organizations are notable if someone (else) (voluntarily) noticed the org. In the absence of evidence that some source wrote about the org, then this guideline assumes that it is, in fact, not notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

      • No, it assumes it is notable, but puts it in terms that other users can understand so there is no confusion on what is notable and what isn't. There is no question (in my eyes anyway) that radio stations are notable...but what radio stations are notable needs to be laid out and is above by Edison and by me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

        • We must not be speaking of the same thing: The existing guideline, which you will find at

          WP:FAILN" model. WhatamIdoing (talk

          ) 07:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMCN (FM), started April 6, 2010, where I argued for deletion on the grounds that a licensed 5 watt college station which only broadcasts while school is in session was not automatically notable, ended in Keep, endorsing the view that this notability guideline for organizations should have the additional text added: "All licensed broadcast stations which originate a portion of their own programming are generally notable." I would exclude "temporary" or "restricted" licenses issued in some countries for broadcasting from a festival. This would not be a departure from present practice in other notability guidelines; it would put them in common with all U.S. state legislators (or equivalents in other countries), which are generally notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. These are cases where "provide multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage" has not been held to be a requirement for the articles to have a presumption of notability, providing a guideline which can be cited in AFDs to decrease the general noise level and angst in such discussions, as was seen in the WMCM deletion debate. This would say nothing about internet stations or pirate stations, which would still need to satisfy GNG. Edison (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  That's not how it works, actually. Please read the text at the top of the "Additional criteria" section at

  WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." BIO has been written such that sources almost always exist for those that meet the alternate criteria, but merely meeting the alternate criteria is not a guarantee that the subject is notable/the expected level of sources exist.

  The basic fact is that unless independent sources exist, we cannot write a neutral and verifiable article. You really cannot produce a fair article if all you have is proof that the product, organization, or business exists, and whatever advertising/self-promotional materials it published it self. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[AVAN Technologies] [3]is a Thrissur based web development and offshore software consulting company. ... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshavan (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 April 2010

Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising. Please read

what makes an org notable? my user page has been marked for deletion as I am putting an information page up for cfpboard.org[1]. there was news coverage this week due to the Financial bill introduced in the Senate for a vote. ^[2]. how can i show notability? Please help! Sclarke1129 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An organization must receive

talk · contribs

) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much - I had also included several references over the last 2-3 years in WSJ, and links to other orgs that are on Wikipedia already. In addition, a very similar org Project Management Institute (of which i am a member) has a page. That's why i though CFP Board was a good candidate for inclusion also. Full disclosure- i am an employee of CFP Board - but the notabilty is something I tried to verify outside of our own org in the entry - I am also a journalist, and do think the entry has value. thanks again Sclarke1129 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to read

talk · contribs

) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

respect Sclarke1129 (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You might also like to read

WP:BFAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your amendments, opinions, or objections would be welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

I see no reason to expand "significant coverage" to be so specific nor limiting beyond the usual meaning of "significant coverage" (i.e. not just press releases, local media, and minor blips". Conversely such criteria would seem to open the door for many unnotable companies based on any reliable coverage, including their own press releases or local media, that makes such claims (some of which are overly subjective, others not evidence of notability). Is there some particular company or organization you feel is being wrongly excluded or included based on "significant coverage" having the usual meaning? --

talk · contribs

) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more a matter of further winnowing the field than of wrongful exclusion, by saying that these are the things that within this particular field make coverage rise to the level of significance. Again, the basic thing I'm aiming at with this is to clarify that significance means that people outside the field or trade need to recognize it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that your proposed criteria are helpful. In fact, I think they would have the opposite of your desired goal.

I know that this isn't what you intended, but this is how some people will interpret these criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

There is some debate over whether

Could some other people please look in on

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at this point you should be commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com (me, I say it's a strong delete). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the guideline currently says:

On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.

I removed it on the basis of it directly contradicting

There is no requirement that this guideline duplicate every detail of

WP:GNG

and never go beyond it; in fact, if ORG followed GNG in every particular, then there wouldn't be any point to ORG's existence.

Very few organizations or companies attempt to make a claim for notability on the basis of peer-reviewed journals. Many, however, attempt it on the basis of "neighborhood" newspapers or articles in small trade association publications (e.g., Kansas Insurance Agent & Broker, printed six times a year and sent to the ~550 insurance agencies that are members). Editors routinely reject such claims, and this page accurately tells editors that they can normally expect such claims to be rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between reliability and establishing notability. Nor does it contradict

talk · contribs

) 05:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GNG is the standard; other guidelines are meant to be more inclusive than GNG -i.e. to give alternative inclusion criteria which extend the simple GNG requirement. WhatamIdoing, I am not sure of understanding what you mean about small trade association publication. If they aren't RS, there's no problem. But if they are RS, why excluding them? I mean, if it's a problem of source reliablity, fine, but then it is not a problem of sources being "local" or "specialized" -a local newspaper can be independent RS coverage, and a specialized magazine can be independent RS coverage too. Could we clarify which sources are RS or not, therefore? --Cyclopia^talk 13:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GNG is the standard; other sources are meant to provide more detailed inclusion standards particular to the subject matter. I don't remember which editor said it (or where, sadly), but the smaller and/or more local a newspaper gets, the less likely it is to provide truly independent coverage. Also, just so everyone's caught up, this was appears to have been originally added to the guideline on 10 September 2008 here based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 5#Tiny newspapers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks VernoWhitney. It seems a pretty small discussion which never reached significant consensus (2 for, 1 against). I don't understand why the more local, the less independent. Can you elaborate on that and, anyway, isn't this an independent issue? (i.e. should we judge dependency of coverage indepedently from it being local or not?) --Cyclopia^talk 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion I was thinking of is here from last month where WhatamIdoing, as an example, compares The San Jose Mercury News to The Mulberry Advance. There's also another related discussion from December where DGG makes a point at the very bottom that local papers tend to be indiscriminate. That's basically where I'm coming from. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Press releases are considered reliable sources, as are official websites, but they are also excluded from establishing notability. Because they are not independent. Same as local papers talking about local people. Unless, of course, you'd like to say that I am notable because I have been in the local paper once or twice? And every business in America is notable because at some point they have had at least a blurb in their local paper. Local media are local because they cover events of local interest, not because said topics are of actual worldwide notability. --

talk · contribs

) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between press releases and official websites (which are not independent) and local papers, which I don't see why aren't independent. Local papers talk about local people, but it is independent coverage of local people. If you had the local paper talking about you twice or more in detail, and you are not tied to the local paper, yes, you're well within

WP:GNG. We do not want to have "worldwide" notability, we only care that independent media have covered the subject. Almost all the towns covered in Wikipedia have no "worldwide notability", yet they're for sure notable. --Cyclopia^talk

15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Far too many 'news sources' rely solely on the press reports. So what they publish frequently has not been filtered. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG trumps WP:CORP. Local sources are not less independent and are used constantly on Wikipedia. WP:CORP's contradiction of WP:GNG is pointless and I think it should be changed. PÆon (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Local sources are fine to establish noteability. The commitment of this project is to capture all the worlds knowledge, with no provision to exclude subjects that arent addressed by national media. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy trumps both.

talk · contribs

) 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when are all local newspaper articles press releases? Press releases written by a business about themselves are not indicative of notability. However, articles written about businesses by the newspaper are. In addition, you took that line out of context. That refers to businesses who's only sources are their own press releases i.e., articles without independent sources. It makes no mention of the reliability of local sources. Your assumption that all local articles about businesses are press releases and your interpretation of WP:PROMOTION are completely incorrect. PÆon (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Local sources are fine for content, the issue is just with their application to notability. And if you take the "all knowledge" part literally, then we should record what I had for lunch last Tuesday, there has to be a line somewhere. An encyclopedia is necessarily a summary of useful knowledge. Also, if GNG trumps CORP then it also trumps PROF, ATH, etc. and there's no reason to have any of the more particular guidelines. Or am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the fact that guidelines like PROF,ATH etc. are extensions of GNG. It works "It is notable if it passes WP:GNG or WP:SPECIFICGUIDELINE, or both.". That is, if an academic is notable per WP:PROF even if fails WP:GNG, it is notable. If an academic fails WP:PROF but is notable for WP:GNG, then it is notable the same. That's the way it works. About the "all knowledge" part, I'd say all knowledge which is verfiabile and noted by secondary sources, yes. Which doesn't include your lunch (unless several sources talked about it). --Cyclopia^talk 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Beat you by two minutes. :P Silverseren^C 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked it was "presumed notable" if GNG and/or PROF, not "is notable". And in this case I was really only badgering PÆon, since they seem to revel in their absolute certainty. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, no, you guys don't get it at all. All of the specific additional criteria about people and corporations ha nothing to do with
  WP:CORP, ect, is considered an alternative way to establish notability. Thus, if an article fails to meet the GNG, but does meet the additional specific criteria, then the subject is likely notable, as it says "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability." Do you get it now? Silverseren^C
  20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The clause in question should be removed. In particular the phrase, "media of limited interest and circulation" does not represent the general consensus because this would mean academic journals and other specialised works which, by their nature, are of limited interest. A 3-person discussion is not a satisfactory quorum to make a sweeping generalisation of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Warden. Sorry, I was focusing on a different point in my last comment. But, yes, you said what I think exactly. Silverseren^C 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let's open up a proper RfC with the community as a whole invited to discuss whether or not companies and organizations that only have coverage in local media or "media of limited interest and circulation" should be considered notable. If the consensus of before shouldn't be satisfactory, I don't see how just this discussion between the few people normally watching this page is either. --

talk · contribs

) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's sore loser talk. According to the rules, the consensus here is enough. In response to the opinion that an article can meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, the deletionists will say that WP:GNG only presumes notability. If the many articles they attack met both WP:GNG and WP:CORP, it would be much harder for them to remove articles that meet only WP:GNG (and deserve an article) with their ridiculous excuse. PÆon (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right that consensus here is enough, but I'm inclined to believe that every major policy or guideline change needs some wider exposure (RfC or otherwise) per

WP:CONLIMITED (I may br in the minority there, though). Regardless, if you think what we have here is anything close to a consensus either way, there's a problem. VernoWhitney (talk

) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, if you want to change a standing guideline such as notability, it does require more discussion than this (and please don't start throwing around insulting labels such as deletionist or inclusionist - thus far this has been a civil discussion, so keep it that way). Further, if this consensus is accepted, it would seem that

talk · contribs

) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden and others: Are you fully aware that this applies only to businesses, not to science or scholarly ideas? Just how many academic journals have you personally seen named in AfDs as proof that any organization (commercial or non-commercial) is notable? (I've seen exactly zero.)

Several of you seem to think that you're over at WT:N, not here at WT:ORG. This standard does not apply to anything except businesses and NGOs.

Now if you can all please remember that we're specifically and exclusively discussing the normal standards applied to "Joe's Hamburger Shack" and the "Smallville Business Club" (not people, ideas, music, science, etc.), then perhaps someone can tell me why s/he thinks that an article in a tiny newspaper about the local hamburger joint—which was probably run because the editor has decided to write stories about every restaurant in town, once a month, in alphabetical order—is really a good indication that this "tiny business" deserves a separate article on Wikipedia, despite

WP:NOT directly and explicitly saying that articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable, and the inclusion of every gas station or mom-and-pop restaurant that can be verified to exist in a small town being pretty much the canonical example of what editors mean when they deplore indiscriminate information? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:GNG, an article must need more than one tiny, non-reliable source. Multiple independent sources are necessary. A tiny business with no importance will not get significant coverage, nor will it get independent sources. In order to get the significant coverage we're talking about, the business would have to be important. My local pharmacy, for example, is not important. I've never seen anything other than the announcement of it's opening in my local newspaper. Mzoli's, however, is important. The goal is to protect the important articles. It will not protect an article with one press release as a source, so there's nothing to worry about. I can understand your fear, that Wikipedia will get filled with articles about tiny shops, but if WP:GNG and WP:CORP are followed, that will not happen. PÆon (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of tiny business will get significant coverage in local newspapers. Perhaps you live in a larger town. Here, pretty much every business in town has been in the paper at least 2-3 times, which by the standards set here means every last one is notable. --

talk · contribs

) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an example for you. Right now, there is an AfD for a business's article. It has three local sources (newspaper with a circulation of 10,000), one national source, and one international source. It has been overwhelmed by deletionists citing the WP:CORP part you're fighting to keep. Do you support their actions? Removing this piece will protect many articles from deletionists. If deletionists didn't use WP:CORP to delete articles like Mzoli's, this wouldn't be a problem, but until this is changed, they will use this section to attack notable businesses. I have a fair compromise. What if we reworded that part to say that in order to establish notability, in addition to the local sources, a business needs one regional or larger source? This would protect the good articles, but disallow the articles that both you and I agree are pointless on Wikipedia. PÆon (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arb break

• How about this?

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary to establish notability.

This will protect notable businesses without allowing the tiny businesses you're referring to on the encyclopedia. PÆon (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PÆon, have you paid careful attention to what this guideline currently says? Specifically, have you noticed that it currently requires only a single non-local source? See "Where coverage is only local in scope..." and "attention solely from local media" (emphasis added). This guideline does not require multiple non-local sources (and AFAIK, never has). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear enough. The AfD I referred to has a national and international source, but to the deletionists, it's not enough. The deletionists have interpreted it that one, even two, sources are not enough. This slight amendment will make it clear that only one is necessary and protect a deletionist interpretation that you need a large number of regional, national, or international sources. Thousands of notable articles will be saved if this sentence is added. Can I go ahead and add that sentence in? PÆon (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is being driven by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). I think you're getting thoughtful and detailed responses.

In the end, editors at AfD are not actually required to favor keeping articles simply because the sources meet the minimum standard described here. This page is an effort to document the community's general view — and the fact that this page is quoted approvingly so often suggests that we're doing fairly well on that score, although I believe every notability page to be, at best, an imperfect description of the community's real views — but editors must use their best judgment in applying it to specific articles. The community retains the right to delete (or merge) even well-sourced articles at its discretion; nothing we put on this page can delete an article the community chooses to keep, or keep an article the community chooses to delete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate is going to be deleted, no matter what is done today. I am not trying to save what is already doomed and have given up on the Muir Skate article. I am only doing this because I don't want it to happen again to another business article. I'm only clarifying what is implied, not changing the guideline. Nobody has to follow it, but later on, when another Mzoli's or Muir Skate is being targeted, the keep side will be able to cite a clear guideline, not something that can be interpreted to delete most business articles on Wikipedia. PÆon (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to accomplish with your proposed amendment, since in addition to adding the "at least one regional ... source is necessary" line you're also removing "media of limited interest and circulation". Please remember that what you feel is implied by the guideline may not be what others feel is implied. I, for example, feel that it is implied that local (or limited interest) sources may not be independent for purposes of establishing notability, and thus your change does not read to me as clarification, but an actual change in the guideline. Furthermore, the rest of the guideline states "...significant coverage in secondary sources ... [a] single independent source is almost never sufficient." (emphasis added), which to me reads as 2+ sources, not the "at least one" which you propose adding. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that section when I wrote it out. Unfortunately, you are confused about the definitions of "primary" and "secondary" sources. Read this. Local coverage can be primary or secondary, as can The New York Times or National Geographic. It depends on the article, not the source. The type of source is completely unrelated to the size of the media outlet. If you read WP:GNG, it states that an article needs multiple secondary sources. If an article only has primary sources from Newsweek and Businessweek, it does not belong on Wikipedia. However, if it has secondary sources from local (plus regional or larger) media, it does belong. Because of this, any person with an understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines and more importantly, an understanding of the definition of primary and secondary sources, who reads the amended section of WP:CORP will understand that an article with two primary sources from a local outlet and one independent source from a national outlet, or two primary sources from a national outlet and one secondary source from a local outlet, is not notable. The guidelines imply that an article with two secondary sources is notable if one of them is regional, national, or international. With this edit, the guideline will not be changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing primary and secondary sources, I was emphasizing that it already says sources, not source, as in more than one. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Unless alternate criteria has been met, in addition to at least one local secondary source, at least one regional, national, or international secondary source is necessary to establish notability. PÆon (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for asking for non-local sources. Local media are enough for everything. Specialized media are enough for everything. Let me remind the spirit of

WP:GNG exists because we want to be sure that what we cover has non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources that allow us to write a NPOV, objective article. So the next band on MySpace can't be covered, because we don't have such coverage that allow us to write such an article. But when we have such coverage, there is no reason to exclude content, because all what we need for an article (independent sources) is there. The geographic scope or the specialization of such sources is entirely irrelevant. GNG, in this respect, means that the subject fulfills a technical requirement. In addition, specialized guidelines like this one exist because there are subject that, even if having lacking coverage, are too obviously notable to not be covered, and in such cases we can temporarily fall back to primary sources, for example. --Cyclopia^talk

11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me where the spirit of GNG is explained? I thought the spirit of the guideline is that for an encyclopedia, "topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'", and this is our attempt at defining what that means for the community, unrelated to NPOV. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again:

WP:RS

" is. Editors have multiple options for establishing notability. CORP is one of the options. If an article is accepted under GNG, then you can ignore CORP. Similarly, if an article is accepted under CORP, then you can ignore GNG.

Think of it as multiple currencies: You can buy food at some large airports using either pounds, dollars, or euros. If you pay with pounds, the cashier will not then turn to you and say, "Okay, now you also have to pay me again, this time in euros."

We're doing the same thing here: If an article meets GNG, it does not need to "get paid again" in CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am trying to say, WhatamIdoing. So, there's no need for a more restrictive clause in CORP about sources requirements, because it is redundant and contradictory. --Cyclopia^talk 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not contradictory: They are separate standards. It is no more contradictory than traffic laws that say "If a street is unmarked, the default speed limit is X" and "The speed limit for this particular stretch of pavement is Y."

Additionally, the fact remains that even if CORP were deleted, or had never existed, editors at AfD would still be rejecting attention from purely small-town/local media sources as evidence that Wikipedia needs separate articles dedicated to mom-and-pop stores. CORP is succeeding in providing an accurate description of the community's actual views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way all other guidelines work. If WP:CORP is alternative to GNG instead than complementary (like all other specific guidelines), then it's CORP weirdness. And if so, this situation has to be solved, because nowhere it is written that GNG is not valid for corporation and that CORP takes precedence. --Cyclopia^talk 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So you want to update the GNG? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)