Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability (organizations and companies) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MakeSense64 (talk | contribs) at 07:59, 21 August 2012 (→Independent sources: hmmm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:59, 21 August 2012 by MakeSense64 (talk | contribs) (→Independent sources: hmmm)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (organizations and companies) page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
WikiProject iconCompanies
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Note: Companies and Corporations was merged with Organizations (notability) on 2-3-07 per consensus reached that date at talk for the former, with redirected discussion from the latter. Please comment here prior to making large changes. However, please fine tune to remove obvious gaffs by the editor who combined the topics.

See also:


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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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".. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages article structure. Multiple related organizations (and products) are often handled in a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 28 May 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article in the first place. There must be sources independent of the company itself before Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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.
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 ).
  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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages.
It might be worth reading WP:WHYN. These are not arbitrary requirements. Requiring some independent sources prevents organizations from using Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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.
Misplaced Pages 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)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (organizations and companies) Add topic