![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am a rookie here so please forgive any transgressions. I have recently created a draft of a page describing the company that I work for. Someone before me created a page for the same company but was perhaps a little overzealous and created a page that was deemed to be very spammy. I do not want to repeat this mistake.
After some discussions and great help from other Wikipedians,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_47#Stop_me_before_I_spam_again
I am trying to post a more unbiased account of the company. As I said, I do work for the company but I am not posting this for marketing reasons. The company has been in business for over 28 years and has been of service to many very large corporations. I truly feel it is a vital and noteworthy organization.
Could someone please review my draft and give me any criticisms or corrections that would help make sure this page isn't out of line? I would like to be more confidant before I take it live.
Thank you in advance for any help. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jopa123/nbri
Jopa123 ( talk) 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that we create some sort of policy regarding notability of hospitals and medical centres. Far to many articles out there that are using the claim "I am a hospital/medical centre therefore I am notable" What establishes notability for a hospital? Does it have to have the normal independent reliable sources? benjicharlton ( talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a start...I think we need to ask that question "What is Encyclopaedic?" benjicharlton ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What is it about the normal rules that isn't adequate here? All organizations need reliable sources. A hospital that receives no media coverage is not notable -- just like any other organization. Given how easy it is for a hospital to get coverage in the local paper, practically any hospital with a publicity department will be able to provide a wide variety of "reliable sources" to support their notability. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Stimulate some more debate. benjicharlton ( talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think general notability rules are perfectly adequate in dealing with hospital articles. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center as example. The references are actual about a different historical hospital (probably deserving of its own Wikipedia page). None of them mention the Medical Centre. Quoting from the original AFD "if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County" okay so fair enough - but if that was the case the Advocate needs to add reliable sources. But this never happened and a second AFD was killed quickly. It is classic assumption of notability. This is only one example. I mean a hospital closed and a medical centre opens down the road. The medical centre is not notable by default. benjicharlton ( talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I would add that any government run or affiliated hospital is of note. Two examples of the range here are University of California, San Diego Medical Center and Lira Hospital, Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwagner607 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this guideline (or perhaps WP:N) used to have language that at least suggested that getting your company into a small local newspaper wasn't really adequate proof of notability. (Otherwise, I believe several of my relatives qualify for Wikipedia articles: they were all repeatedly on the front page of the local newspaper... a single-sheet tabloid with a circulation of about two hundred subscribers.)
In a small town, practically any small business is "newsworthy" -- within the town. Opening a barbershop is front-page news in a small enough market. Any non-profit organization, no matter how minor, can get a short story like this one in a local market. But for notability purposes, it shouldn't be good enough to get one story in The Brooklyn Chronicle (circulation <1600 [1] and another in its rival The Grinnell Herald-Register (circulation 2700 [2]), even though this would technically represent media coverage in "multiple independent, third-party reliable sources".
Could we add a suggestion in this guideline that media coverage is generally expected to be national or at least regional in nature? I'd like something that is more 'explanatory' in nature, and that would be helpful to new editors that need to assess the likelihood of their article on a tiny organization being deleted. I have two specific proposals, and am open to all suggestions:
Does this seem appropriate to you? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that many academic organizations have been mentioned in the news media and some have been the subject of independent scholarly research, many are not - they play a crucial role within the Academy but in fact are often not of interest to the news media or of scholars themselves. I don't think this policy covers such organizations adequately.
One question I have concerns this sentence in the policy: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Does this imply that an organization whose activities are of national or international scope are usually notable? The documentation for this by the way is almost always internally generated, because the only people who care about the organization's activities are its members.
But national academic organizations have many members, and more to the point most academics of a given field usually belong to the organization i.e. it is inclusive.
Might it be worth distinguishing between special interest organizations and professional organizations? It seems to me that a major concern here for a notability standard is to prevent the self-promotion of organizations who have a strong interest in self-promotion. This seems reasonable to me. But some organizations do not have a strong interest in self-promotion and we really need not be too concerned about an article here promoting that organization. This is what I am trying to get at in my phrasing "special interest organizations" and "professional organizations" but probably there is a better way to phrase it. I sure welcome suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now the SLAS article has only two references, one from the publisher of its journal (the only subscriptions are the ones for libraries or the free one that comes with society membership, so it is virtually in-house) and one from J-stor, for the same pub (and most academic organizations have publications, and most of those publications are covered by J-stor) ... this is not a lot. By comparison there are books published by academic presses that have information on the history or internal politice of the American Anthropological Association. So sometimes there are the kinds of secondary sources we prefer for most articles, but often there are not. I think Edison's example of the AAMC is a good one - I consider it to be notable on its face, whether its only source is its website or not. In these cases, where the organization has a natural constituency and little interest in promotion - or where the primary user of the website is people who are already members of the organization - I have found that their own website is the best source for information on the organization and a reliable source. I just feel the policy should have some guidelines on this. I am sure we all agree that we don't want Wikipedia abused, for example used to promote an organization ... and obviously having a website in and of itself cannot be enough, given how easy it is to create a website. Maybe we can say something about the age or size of the organization, but it seems to me that we can also talk about a kind of organization, specifically professional organizations, that do not need lots of citations. But the policy has to provide clear guidance on how to recognize legitimate professional organizations and distinguish them from fronts for a few guys who just want to publicize their views on the web. I would like to think that when it comes to AAA, SLAS, or AAMC one can tell just by looking at the website, but we cannot take this for granted. What language can we put into this policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In the abstract, I take WP:V very seriously. And I share Edison's concerns. But I do not think the policy was written with these kinds of organizations in mind. Most articles we have are on topics like Jesus and evolution and our policies were mostly written based on wisdom accumulated while working on those articles. In some cases - like BLP - our standards are harsher than our standards for other articles. It seems reasonable to wonder if there is also a class of articles where the standards could be looser. I appreciate Edison's listing of third-party resources - why not put these into the article? I think Edison's points are very helpful but I do not think this closes the discussion of the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Itemirus wrote above:
UnitedStatesian and I suggested refinements to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations. Rossami cautioned that the requested articles lists are "less bad" than specific lists of quoted companies, and "Once they were moved out of the articlespace, the vandalism fell off - but that isolation created it's own problems."
I for one, and perhaps only one, would enjoy picking off one or two articles a month from a prioritised list, but I don't find the current list of requested articles inspiring. I enjoy researching notable companies I have never heard of, like Kagome Co., Ltd..
Rossami: what were the problems created by isolation?
So by all means, Itemirus, I would encourage you to create a prioritised list of red links (not in article space) but bear in mind that you and I may be the only ones that use it.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The existing guidelines seem insufficient for deciding whether to include significant sub-organizations, and by this I don't mean regional chapters, but sub-organization with a special focus. A prime example in computing are ACM SIGs. An example in medicine is SHSMD, part of AHA. I'm tempted to think that these should be included. Proposed criteria:
What do you think? VG ☎ 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
According to "Primary criteria" a business would be Notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. I found a Wikipedia article for an indy record label, Mo-Da-Mu. The article has (had) been tagged since October 2006 with "This article does not cite any references or sources." I added the "prod" tag today citing the "Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria" guidelines, and also restated the fact little work had been done since 2006. The tag was almost instantly removed (Along with the October 2006 tag) because "an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable". Two citations were added - a link the bands bio and a link to an "online history" of the band that states "Info provided by: www.divineindustries.com", which is the bands management - who also used to run the label in question. ( Management Roster:54-40). Taken on it's own this article does not seem strong enough for any Wikipedia article - left un-cited for 2 years and in a stub form. Am I missing something in how an Indy record label, as an organization and/or company, should be considered for notability? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize this topic has had considerable attention in the past, but the criteria seem to be to be insufficient to deal with the world. The main criterion is an organization whose "activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent". That would mean that an organization that does any international work whose works are verified is deemed to be notable. In other words, "international" scope of activities is being used as a proxy for "significant coverage. That just doesn't make sense.
Also, it would be useful to have guidance about government-related organizations--are they automatically notable, or do they need "significant coverage". Do the normal rules for splitting apply to sub-agencies or other subdivisions, or shuold they differ? For example, the NTIA has its own page--does that make sense, or should information about it be included in United States Department of Commerce? And its sub-agency, the Office of Spectrum Management, does not have its own article--should it? What about UN departments and agencies? Are they automatically notable, or do they need to receive "significant coverage"?
Bongo matic 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
←These observations--while true--do not explain what makes the organizations suitable as subjects for Wikipedia articles. Nor do they square with what I believe is the consensus view on the conventional meanings of "international scale" or "national scale". Bongo matic 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that
"Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."
is a good suggestion. A flat prohibition often isn't nearly as effective as suggesting an acceptable compromise. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am new to editing Wikipedia and have a quick question about the notability requirements. F.F. Ertl III, Inc. is a small manufacturer of die-cast collectibles and does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I cannot find any articles mentioning them in any newspapers, but a quick Google search reveals several company profiles on third-party websites such as bizjournals.com. Does this qualify as notable?
For what it's worth, the company's two brands (Die-Cast Promotions and Highway 61) have a good reputation among die-cast collectors and many if not most involved in the hobby are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of these brands. You can verify this for yourself on various Internet message boards, but I cannot seem to find an answer to whether or not Internet message boards meet the requirements for "verifiable".
If all else fails, there is currently an encyclopedia of die-cast replica brands in national publication that I intend to acquire in the future, and I would assume that inclusion in such an encyclopedia would qualify a company as "notable".
Thank you for your time,
Robert
Jedimario ( talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In relation to United States Justice Foundation prod. The organization has been an amicus curiae in several lawsuits heard by the Ninth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. (refs in article). Does being an amicus curiae at the national level create notability? This has probably been addressed somewhere already, but not easy to find, so input requested, or an opinion that the question should be posted at a noticeboard. Novickas ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to some disagreement at AfD about exactly where the bar is for micro-airlines, I am attempting to jump-start an old discussion here to determine if a specific standard needs to be developed for these organizations. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A user and I disagreed over whether offices of airlines that are not headquarters should be listed in articles of small cities (i.e. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) and business districts (i.e. Center City Philadelphia) - See User_talk:HkCaGu#Airport_offices
Many airlines operate offices in other cities in other countries - I feel that articles of neighborhoods and small cities should mention the airline operations in the "Economy" section as the airlines contribute tax revenue and employ area residents. The other user feels that this is too directory-like and is not particularly notable to the small cities and neighborhoods. What do you guys think? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of editors of this policy would be appreciated. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Official Web site of Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes in Meadow Woods, Orlando, Florida. Information for residents and visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsvirginsi ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
User:RadioFan flagged the article Octagon Press Ltd for lack of notability. The difficulty I'm having, which you'll see immediately if you have a look at the article now it's been extended, is that hardly anybody has said anything significant about the publisher itself, but the company's founder, authors and products have received extensive coverage and are notable. Folk talk about authors and books but often only mention publishers in passing, especially if the company is not quoted on the stock exchange.
The problem is that the letter of the wikipedia law rules out such inheritence. Is the wikipedia policy too inflexible here? Ideas most welcome. Thanks Esowteric ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If reliable secondary sources say that the Lotus Elan is a great car and the Lotus Elite is a great car, then we should be able to derive from that the fact that Lotus manufacture great cars, though a direct statement to this effect would be better. Wikipedia shouldn't favour those, often larger, companies who have worked on bringing their brand name to the public's attention.
Perhaps the wording might be changed to include "... or, in the case of organizations and companies with several or many of their own products or services [where merging, etc is not a suitable option], if these have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources showing the notability of those goods and services ..." or somesuch? Esowteric ( talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
THRI is a Florida not-for-profit organization that promotes basic human rights. T.H.R.I. stands for The Human Rights Initiative. The corporation exists to provide homeless men, women, and children with housing, food, clothing, education, and health care.
T.H.R.I.'s mission is to radically transform the city—as well as the surrounding area—by providing direct aid to homeless members of the community.
T.H.R.I., Inc. was co-founded by Jonathon Ballard and Ryan Ross to help re-new the tri-country region in Florida.
Board of Directors President_Jonathon Ballard Vice President_Ryan McInerney Committee Chair_Ryan Ross Treasurer_Anthony Burgos
Secretary_Stephanie Ross
I've moved a bunch of comments to the archive, but have not updated the "table of contents". I'm not sure that it's actually that useful. I wonder if it could be replaced with an archive search instead? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If a company or organization is large enough, it significantly affects the lives of a large enough percentage of the world's people to be notable. In order that bots can detect and add missing articles, I suggest that we set some thresholds above which a company or organization is automatically notable. How about any one of the following?
Neon Merlin 06:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the instructions on WP:GUIDE, I propose that the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide be promoted from essay to guideline, with WP:CORP as its parent.
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a wine guide#Proposal to promote from essay to guideline. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What makes a shopping mall notable? Is every single blue listed article at List of shopping malls in the Philippines notable? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The looseness of the criteria stated herein, and the constant Wikilawyering it seems to engender, has been a source of some frustration to me. I continue to think it ought to be tightened up.
Then, last night, as I drifted off to sleep, and thought about the things I usually think about when drifting off to sleep, inspiration struck. We've had a fairly specific and strict notability policy specifically for porn stars, likewise engendered of wikilawyering, and the fact that a porn star by definition is being substantially covered (or rather uncovered) by independent media, so the general notability policy is not going to be strict enough. The career of a porn star is necessarily relatively brief and ephemeral. It was decided that the general notability policy was not enough.
Likewise, the current guideline is not quite good enough to exclude ephemeral consulting and investment firms with little physical presence or historic resonance; we should only cover those businesses that are well known and of interest to the general public. Now, by way of example, the porn star criteria currently require that a subject:
I would propose using this as a model for new criteria for business notability.
A business is presumed to be notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
I think this would be somewhat clearer and help deal with spam better. What say you? - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
to the "Works carrying merely trivial coverage" bullet point under the primary criteria might be helpful.Quotations from business personnel as sources do not count unless the business is also the chief subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.)
I noticed this discussion (see question 8) of the number of pages on individual cell phones and related products, and it makes me wonder: should there be a guideline on notability for individual commercial products? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we have this policy explicitly state that it applies to fictional organizations and companies as well? I assume that this policy can be used for fictional entities. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The following text was inserted to WP:ORG at 20:57 December 9, and was reverted at 23:01, pending resolution of the debate which immediately follows.
“ | As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools which do get merged are generally redirected to the school district which operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere). Classrooms, lessons, and classes are not notable. Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field (e.g., University of Chicago Department of Economics), or produced a number of notable graduates ( USC School of Cinematic Arts, Oxford PPE). The notability of student unions may vary between different countries and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor. (Refer to WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life for specifics). | ” |
Over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Creek_High_School, editors are arguing that it is "overall community consensus that high school pages should be kept as they generally have verifiable and notable content, most specifically related to sports teams." I'd like to verify if this is true. If it is, shouldn't that be included in WP:ORG so more editors don't interpret the standard too narrowly? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've updated Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations to reflect what I've learned about the consensus. Hopefully this will reduce the number of high schools being nominated. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm hardly ever a fan of "all X are notable". Some things tend to be more notable than others. It's unusual for a high school that exists to get deleted as the result of an AfD. Generally it's a lack of handy sources that lead to their nomination for deletion (see also: FUTON bias). As someone who has created a couple hundred high school articles, I'm still running across sources for them. I can find a half-dozen sources for any given high school in my regional location. I'm no good at the UK or Phillipines or El Salvador. Again, that's just bias- the sources are probably there, especially if they are centrally administered. Finally, it's unfortunate that WP:SCH hasn't achieved consensus. It's more a statement of the state of Wikipedia than anything. tedder ( talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a question, the answer to which may shed some light on providing some guidance to future editors:
If a common outcome does reflect a general consensus, then the original edit to WP:ORG should stand. If it does not reflect a general consensus, then NOTE: The common outcomes listed here do not constitute a de facto general consensus and should not be used as arguments for or against a deletion in an AfD debate should be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, in my opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as inherent or automatic notability. Period. This insidious notion has lodged itself into the collective mindset here as a result of the perpetual and repeated confounding of "Wikipedia Notability" with the word "notability". They are not the same thing. Now, if the community wants to decide that Wikipedia should have an article on every high school for one reason or another, then so be it. While I do not favor the inclusion of every high school, I would at the very least be satisfied if the community would be more honest about the rationale and stop trying to pretend that high schools - or any subject, for that matter - is Inherently Notable. Sher eth 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there's no inherent notability. "All 'X' are notable" is a bad idea. Check; I got it. But that isn't helping me with the problem, the problem being that the current policy is unclear and needs to be edited so that future editors don't get tripped up like I did. I am clearly trying to get consensus on adding a guideline of some sort to elucidate things, and I feel like either nobody gets this, nobody cares, or nobody can be arsed to do some problem solving. Can I get some help, please? From anyone? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In partial solution to this problem, I have completed a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES to make it clearly descriptive, rather than proscriptive, with such lines as:
“ | This page is descriptive in nature, providing information on how AfD nominations are commonly resolved. WP:NOTABILITY is an official guideline, whereas this article is not. Where discrepancies occur, the guideline would prevail in a strictly by-the-book argument. This article has utility as a descriptor of common practices but as it has no official weight it should never be used as an argument unto itself. Keep/Delete per WP:OUTCOMES is not a valid argument in an AfD debate. | ” |
This edit was of course reverted, in contravention of the essay that was cited in doing that very revert. So I reverted it back (which stuck and is currently still the top page). Please go take a look and comment on the talk page under MAJOR OVERHAUL if you are interested in being part of the consensus that determines whether this edit stays or is reverted. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Although I have strong inclusionistic instincts (and was guided here from WP:CENT), I have a coldly-pragmatic argument for letting any documentable school at any level have its own article; perhaps it would stop cluttering the "Education" section of geographic articles with endless strings of schools. I once partially edited Staten Island#Education when the string was something like "I.S. 2, I.S. 3, I.S. 8, I.S. 11, ..." (none linking to an article except I.S. 49), which of course is a meaningless ascending series of random positive integers to any non-Islander. (The same applies to hospitals: Health care in the United States is a good article; the regional articles and the health sections of geographic articles, disappointingly, are just lists, even for New England and California.) School pride is a wonderful thing; if students, teachers, alumni and parents had an article to improve and justify, that might teach them something about Wikipedia, verifiability, research, neutrality, etc. Then the Education section of a geographic article could just start with a hatnote saying "See also:List of schools in ...." and discuss the nature, achievements and failures of local education. —— Shakescene ( talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The high school that a notable individual attended is almost never worth noting in the subject's biography. Naming high schools tends to make biographies bottom heavy with too much emphasis on the subject's origins and not enough focus on the reason for notability. This issue are probably not an point of dispute among experienced editors, but school pride often leads to inclusion of high schools. These references should be deleted. G&E ( talk) 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
General comment on the misnomer "inherent notability" - when people who understand Wiki-notability speak of inherent notability, they mean There's a snowball's chance that it's not Wiki-notable, don't bother sending it to AFD on notability concerns, instead, spend your time adding citations. If you can't find any after a dilligent search, then you may have found the rare item in this category that is indeed not Wiki-notable. There is a snowball's chance that a head of state is not notable, therefore, using the slang "heads of state are inherently notable" as Wiki-policytalk slang is correct. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the Chains and franchises portion of this policy is inadequate. It merely states that a specific location of a franchise is not in most cases notable, which is very true. However, it does not state in any way, what makes a chain itself notable. I realize that this entire notability policy exists so that we wouldn't have millions of pages documenting every 100 sq ft mom'n'pop yarn store in the basements of Brooklyn. But I think that this policy should not apply as heavily on chains and franchises. If there was no press coverage of McDonald's (and frankly there quite seldomly is), I believe the size of its Wikipedia page wouldn't shrink a byte. The fact that the company strives so well that it has several locations possibly in several countries should be enough of a notability factor in itself. Just as Wikipedia, newspapers - no matter how local - do not document every opening of a big chain. Even if something important or tragic happened in a location, they would focus on the event and not the location. Often newspapers find these big chains such a de facto existance that they find no reason to bang the drum on something everybody already knows. As such, this coverage-by-independent-news-sources policy is often impossible to meet. Even so, I find a chain with thirty locations notable enough for an introductory Wikipedia page. Yet why isn't there one? -- 88.113.114.85 ( talk) 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've partially restored the information, leaving the examples out, which I found distracting. I think this is helpful redundancy, addressing real problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am a rookie here so please forgive any transgressions. I have recently created a draft of a page describing the company that I work for. Someone before me created a page for the same company but was perhaps a little overzealous and created a page that was deemed to be very spammy. I do not want to repeat this mistake.
After some discussions and great help from other Wikipedians,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_47#Stop_me_before_I_spam_again
I am trying to post a more unbiased account of the company. As I said, I do work for the company but I am not posting this for marketing reasons. The company has been in business for over 28 years and has been of service to many very large corporations. I truly feel it is a vital and noteworthy organization.
Could someone please review my draft and give me any criticisms or corrections that would help make sure this page isn't out of line? I would like to be more confidant before I take it live.
Thank you in advance for any help. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jopa123/nbri
Jopa123 ( talk) 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that we create some sort of policy regarding notability of hospitals and medical centres. Far to many articles out there that are using the claim "I am a hospital/medical centre therefore I am notable" What establishes notability for a hospital? Does it have to have the normal independent reliable sources? benjicharlton ( talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think thats a start...I think we need to ask that question "What is Encyclopaedic?" benjicharlton ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What is it about the normal rules that isn't adequate here? All organizations need reliable sources. A hospital that receives no media coverage is not notable -- just like any other organization. Given how easy it is for a hospital to get coverage in the local paper, practically any hospital with a publicity department will be able to provide a wide variety of "reliable sources" to support their notability. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Stimulate some more debate. benjicharlton ( talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think general notability rules are perfectly adequate in dealing with hospital articles. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center as example. The references are actual about a different historical hospital (probably deserving of its own Wikipedia page). None of them mention the Medical Centre. Quoting from the original AFD "if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County" okay so fair enough - but if that was the case the Advocate needs to add reliable sources. But this never happened and a second AFD was killed quickly. It is classic assumption of notability. This is only one example. I mean a hospital closed and a medical centre opens down the road. The medical centre is not notable by default. benjicharlton ( talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I would add that any government run or affiliated hospital is of note. Two examples of the range here are University of California, San Diego Medical Center and Lira Hospital, Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwagner607 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this guideline (or perhaps WP:N) used to have language that at least suggested that getting your company into a small local newspaper wasn't really adequate proof of notability. (Otherwise, I believe several of my relatives qualify for Wikipedia articles: they were all repeatedly on the front page of the local newspaper... a single-sheet tabloid with a circulation of about two hundred subscribers.)
In a small town, practically any small business is "newsworthy" -- within the town. Opening a barbershop is front-page news in a small enough market. Any non-profit organization, no matter how minor, can get a short story like this one in a local market. But for notability purposes, it shouldn't be good enough to get one story in The Brooklyn Chronicle (circulation <1600 [1] and another in its rival The Grinnell Herald-Register (circulation 2700 [2]), even though this would technically represent media coverage in "multiple independent, third-party reliable sources".
Could we add a suggestion in this guideline that media coverage is generally expected to be national or at least regional in nature? I'd like something that is more 'explanatory' in nature, and that would be helpful to new editors that need to assess the likelihood of their article on a tiny organization being deleted. I have two specific proposals, and am open to all suggestions:
Does this seem appropriate to you? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that many academic organizations have been mentioned in the news media and some have been the subject of independent scholarly research, many are not - they play a crucial role within the Academy but in fact are often not of interest to the news media or of scholars themselves. I don't think this policy covers such organizations adequately.
One question I have concerns this sentence in the policy: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Does this imply that an organization whose activities are of national or international scope are usually notable? The documentation for this by the way is almost always internally generated, because the only people who care about the organization's activities are its members.
But national academic organizations have many members, and more to the point most academics of a given field usually belong to the organization i.e. it is inclusive.
Might it be worth distinguishing between special interest organizations and professional organizations? It seems to me that a major concern here for a notability standard is to prevent the self-promotion of organizations who have a strong interest in self-promotion. This seems reasonable to me. But some organizations do not have a strong interest in self-promotion and we really need not be too concerned about an article here promoting that organization. This is what I am trying to get at in my phrasing "special interest organizations" and "professional organizations" but probably there is a better way to phrase it. I sure welcome suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now the SLAS article has only two references, one from the publisher of its journal (the only subscriptions are the ones for libraries or the free one that comes with society membership, so it is virtually in-house) and one from J-stor, for the same pub (and most academic organizations have publications, and most of those publications are covered by J-stor) ... this is not a lot. By comparison there are books published by academic presses that have information on the history or internal politice of the American Anthropological Association. So sometimes there are the kinds of secondary sources we prefer for most articles, but often there are not. I think Edison's example of the AAMC is a good one - I consider it to be notable on its face, whether its only source is its website or not. In these cases, where the organization has a natural constituency and little interest in promotion - or where the primary user of the website is people who are already members of the organization - I have found that their own website is the best source for information on the organization and a reliable source. I just feel the policy should have some guidelines on this. I am sure we all agree that we don't want Wikipedia abused, for example used to promote an organization ... and obviously having a website in and of itself cannot be enough, given how easy it is to create a website. Maybe we can say something about the age or size of the organization, but it seems to me that we can also talk about a kind of organization, specifically professional organizations, that do not need lots of citations. But the policy has to provide clear guidance on how to recognize legitimate professional organizations and distinguish them from fronts for a few guys who just want to publicize their views on the web. I would like to think that when it comes to AAA, SLAS, or AAMC one can tell just by looking at the website, but we cannot take this for granted. What language can we put into this policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In the abstract, I take WP:V very seriously. And I share Edison's concerns. But I do not think the policy was written with these kinds of organizations in mind. Most articles we have are on topics like Jesus and evolution and our policies were mostly written based on wisdom accumulated while working on those articles. In some cases - like BLP - our standards are harsher than our standards for other articles. It seems reasonable to wonder if there is also a class of articles where the standards could be looser. I appreciate Edison's listing of third-party resources - why not put these into the article? I think Edison's points are very helpful but I do not think this closes the discussion of the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Itemirus wrote above:
UnitedStatesian and I suggested refinements to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations. Rossami cautioned that the requested articles lists are "less bad" than specific lists of quoted companies, and "Once they were moved out of the articlespace, the vandalism fell off - but that isolation created it's own problems."
I for one, and perhaps only one, would enjoy picking off one or two articles a month from a prioritised list, but I don't find the current list of requested articles inspiring. I enjoy researching notable companies I have never heard of, like Kagome Co., Ltd..
Rossami: what were the problems created by isolation?
So by all means, Itemirus, I would encourage you to create a prioritised list of red links (not in article space) but bear in mind that you and I may be the only ones that use it.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The existing guidelines seem insufficient for deciding whether to include significant sub-organizations, and by this I don't mean regional chapters, but sub-organization with a special focus. A prime example in computing are ACM SIGs. An example in medicine is SHSMD, part of AHA. I'm tempted to think that these should be included. Proposed criteria:
What do you think? VG ☎ 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
According to "Primary criteria" a business would be Notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. I found a Wikipedia article for an indy record label, Mo-Da-Mu. The article has (had) been tagged since October 2006 with "This article does not cite any references or sources." I added the "prod" tag today citing the "Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria" guidelines, and also restated the fact little work had been done since 2006. The tag was almost instantly removed (Along with the October 2006 tag) because "an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable". Two citations were added - a link the bands bio and a link to an "online history" of the band that states "Info provided by: www.divineindustries.com", which is the bands management - who also used to run the label in question. ( Management Roster:54-40). Taken on it's own this article does not seem strong enough for any Wikipedia article - left un-cited for 2 years and in a stub form. Am I missing something in how an Indy record label, as an organization and/or company, should be considered for notability? Soundvisions1 ( talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I realize this topic has had considerable attention in the past, but the criteria seem to be to be insufficient to deal with the world. The main criterion is an organization whose "activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent". That would mean that an organization that does any international work whose works are verified is deemed to be notable. In other words, "international" scope of activities is being used as a proxy for "significant coverage. That just doesn't make sense.
Also, it would be useful to have guidance about government-related organizations--are they automatically notable, or do they need "significant coverage". Do the normal rules for splitting apply to sub-agencies or other subdivisions, or shuold they differ? For example, the NTIA has its own page--does that make sense, or should information about it be included in United States Department of Commerce? And its sub-agency, the Office of Spectrum Management, does not have its own article--should it? What about UN departments and agencies? Are they automatically notable, or do they need to receive "significant coverage"?
Bongo matic 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
←These observations--while true--do not explain what makes the organizations suitable as subjects for Wikipedia articles. Nor do they square with what I believe is the consensus view on the conventional meanings of "international scale" or "national scale". Bongo matic 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that
"Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."
is a good suggestion. A flat prohibition often isn't nearly as effective as suggesting an acceptable compromise. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am new to editing Wikipedia and have a quick question about the notability requirements. F.F. Ertl III, Inc. is a small manufacturer of die-cast collectibles and does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I cannot find any articles mentioning them in any newspapers, but a quick Google search reveals several company profiles on third-party websites such as bizjournals.com. Does this qualify as notable?
For what it's worth, the company's two brands (Die-Cast Promotions and Highway 61) have a good reputation among die-cast collectors and many if not most involved in the hobby are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of these brands. You can verify this for yourself on various Internet message boards, but I cannot seem to find an answer to whether or not Internet message boards meet the requirements for "verifiable".
If all else fails, there is currently an encyclopedia of die-cast replica brands in national publication that I intend to acquire in the future, and I would assume that inclusion in such an encyclopedia would qualify a company as "notable".
Thank you for your time,
Robert
Jedimario ( talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In relation to United States Justice Foundation prod. The organization has been an amicus curiae in several lawsuits heard by the Ninth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. (refs in article). Does being an amicus curiae at the national level create notability? This has probably been addressed somewhere already, but not easy to find, so input requested, or an opinion that the question should be posted at a noticeboard. Novickas ( talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to some disagreement at AfD about exactly where the bar is for micro-airlines, I am attempting to jump-start an old discussion here to determine if a specific standard needs to be developed for these organizations. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A user and I disagreed over whether offices of airlines that are not headquarters should be listed in articles of small cities (i.e. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) and business districts (i.e. Center City Philadelphia) - See User_talk:HkCaGu#Airport_offices
Many airlines operate offices in other cities in other countries - I feel that articles of neighborhoods and small cities should mention the airline operations in the "Economy" section as the airlines contribute tax revenue and employ area residents. The other user feels that this is too directory-like and is not particularly notable to the small cities and neighborhoods. What do you guys think? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of editors of this policy would be appreciated. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Official Web site of Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes in Meadow Woods, Orlando, Florida. Information for residents and visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsvirginsi ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
User:RadioFan flagged the article Octagon Press Ltd for lack of notability. The difficulty I'm having, which you'll see immediately if you have a look at the article now it's been extended, is that hardly anybody has said anything significant about the publisher itself, but the company's founder, authors and products have received extensive coverage and are notable. Folk talk about authors and books but often only mention publishers in passing, especially if the company is not quoted on the stock exchange.
The problem is that the letter of the wikipedia law rules out such inheritence. Is the wikipedia policy too inflexible here? Ideas most welcome. Thanks Esowteric ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If reliable secondary sources say that the Lotus Elan is a great car and the Lotus Elite is a great car, then we should be able to derive from that the fact that Lotus manufacture great cars, though a direct statement to this effect would be better. Wikipedia shouldn't favour those, often larger, companies who have worked on bringing their brand name to the public's attention.
Perhaps the wording might be changed to include "... or, in the case of organizations and companies with several or many of their own products or services [where merging, etc is not a suitable option], if these have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources showing the notability of those goods and services ..." or somesuch? Esowteric ( talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
THRI is a Florida not-for-profit organization that promotes basic human rights. T.H.R.I. stands for The Human Rights Initiative. The corporation exists to provide homeless men, women, and children with housing, food, clothing, education, and health care.
T.H.R.I.'s mission is to radically transform the city—as well as the surrounding area—by providing direct aid to homeless members of the community.
T.H.R.I., Inc. was co-founded by Jonathon Ballard and Ryan Ross to help re-new the tri-country region in Florida.
Board of Directors President_Jonathon Ballard Vice President_Ryan McInerney Committee Chair_Ryan Ross Treasurer_Anthony Burgos
Secretary_Stephanie Ross
I've moved a bunch of comments to the archive, but have not updated the "table of contents". I'm not sure that it's actually that useful. I wonder if it could be replaced with an archive search instead? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If a company or organization is large enough, it significantly affects the lives of a large enough percentage of the world's people to be notable. In order that bots can detect and add missing articles, I suggest that we set some thresholds above which a company or organization is automatically notable. How about any one of the following?
Neon Merlin 06:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Per the instructions on WP:GUIDE, I propose that the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide be promoted from essay to guideline, with WP:CORP as its parent.
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a wine guide#Proposal to promote from essay to guideline. Thanks. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What makes a shopping mall notable? Is every single blue listed article at List of shopping malls in the Philippines notable? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The looseness of the criteria stated herein, and the constant Wikilawyering it seems to engender, has been a source of some frustration to me. I continue to think it ought to be tightened up.
Then, last night, as I drifted off to sleep, and thought about the things I usually think about when drifting off to sleep, inspiration struck. We've had a fairly specific and strict notability policy specifically for porn stars, likewise engendered of wikilawyering, and the fact that a porn star by definition is being substantially covered (or rather uncovered) by independent media, so the general notability policy is not going to be strict enough. The career of a porn star is necessarily relatively brief and ephemeral. It was decided that the general notability policy was not enough.
Likewise, the current guideline is not quite good enough to exclude ephemeral consulting and investment firms with little physical presence or historic resonance; we should only cover those businesses that are well known and of interest to the general public. Now, by way of example, the porn star criteria currently require that a subject:
I would propose using this as a model for new criteria for business notability.
A business is presumed to be notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
I think this would be somewhat clearer and help deal with spam better. What say you? - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
to the "Works carrying merely trivial coverage" bullet point under the primary criteria might be helpful.Quotations from business personnel as sources do not count unless the business is also the chief subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.)
I noticed this discussion (see question 8) of the number of pages on individual cell phones and related products, and it makes me wonder: should there be a guideline on notability for individual commercial products? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we have this policy explicitly state that it applies to fictional organizations and companies as well? I assume that this policy can be used for fictional entities. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The following text was inserted to WP:ORG at 20:57 December 9, and was reverted at 23:01, pending resolution of the debate which immediately follows.
“ | As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools which do get merged are generally redirected to the school district which operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere). Classrooms, lessons, and classes are not notable. Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field (e.g., University of Chicago Department of Economics), or produced a number of notable graduates ( USC School of Cinematic Arts, Oxford PPE). The notability of student unions may vary between different countries and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor. (Refer to WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life for specifics). | ” |
Over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Creek_High_School, editors are arguing that it is "overall community consensus that high school pages should be kept as they generally have verifiable and notable content, most specifically related to sports teams." I'd like to verify if this is true. If it is, shouldn't that be included in WP:ORG so more editors don't interpret the standard too narrowly? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've updated Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations to reflect what I've learned about the consensus. Hopefully this will reduce the number of high schools being nominated. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm hardly ever a fan of "all X are notable". Some things tend to be more notable than others. It's unusual for a high school that exists to get deleted as the result of an AfD. Generally it's a lack of handy sources that lead to their nomination for deletion (see also: FUTON bias). As someone who has created a couple hundred high school articles, I'm still running across sources for them. I can find a half-dozen sources for any given high school in my regional location. I'm no good at the UK or Phillipines or El Salvador. Again, that's just bias- the sources are probably there, especially if they are centrally administered. Finally, it's unfortunate that WP:SCH hasn't achieved consensus. It's more a statement of the state of Wikipedia than anything. tedder ( talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a question, the answer to which may shed some light on providing some guidance to future editors:
If a common outcome does reflect a general consensus, then the original edit to WP:ORG should stand. If it does not reflect a general consensus, then NOTE: The common outcomes listed here do not constitute a de facto general consensus and should not be used as arguments for or against a deletion in an AfD debate should be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, in my opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as inherent or automatic notability. Period. This insidious notion has lodged itself into the collective mindset here as a result of the perpetual and repeated confounding of "Wikipedia Notability" with the word "notability". They are not the same thing. Now, if the community wants to decide that Wikipedia should have an article on every high school for one reason or another, then so be it. While I do not favor the inclusion of every high school, I would at the very least be satisfied if the community would be more honest about the rationale and stop trying to pretend that high schools - or any subject, for that matter - is Inherently Notable. Sher eth 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there's no inherent notability. "All 'X' are notable" is a bad idea. Check; I got it. But that isn't helping me with the problem, the problem being that the current policy is unclear and needs to be edited so that future editors don't get tripped up like I did. I am clearly trying to get consensus on adding a guideline of some sort to elucidate things, and I feel like either nobody gets this, nobody cares, or nobody can be arsed to do some problem solving. Can I get some help, please? From anyone? ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
In partial solution to this problem, I have completed a major overhaul of WP:OUTCOMES to make it clearly descriptive, rather than proscriptive, with such lines as:
“ | This page is descriptive in nature, providing information on how AfD nominations are commonly resolved. WP:NOTABILITY is an official guideline, whereas this article is not. Where discrepancies occur, the guideline would prevail in a strictly by-the-book argument. This article has utility as a descriptor of common practices but as it has no official weight it should never be used as an argument unto itself. Keep/Delete per WP:OUTCOMES is not a valid argument in an AfD debate. | ” |
This edit was of course reverted, in contravention of the essay that was cited in doing that very revert. So I reverted it back (which stuck and is currently still the top page). Please go take a look and comment on the talk page under MAJOR OVERHAUL if you are interested in being part of the consensus that determines whether this edit stays or is reverted. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Although I have strong inclusionistic instincts (and was guided here from WP:CENT), I have a coldly-pragmatic argument for letting any documentable school at any level have its own article; perhaps it would stop cluttering the "Education" section of geographic articles with endless strings of schools. I once partially edited Staten Island#Education when the string was something like "I.S. 2, I.S. 3, I.S. 8, I.S. 11, ..." (none linking to an article except I.S. 49), which of course is a meaningless ascending series of random positive integers to any non-Islander. (The same applies to hospitals: Health care in the United States is a good article; the regional articles and the health sections of geographic articles, disappointingly, are just lists, even for New England and California.) School pride is a wonderful thing; if students, teachers, alumni and parents had an article to improve and justify, that might teach them something about Wikipedia, verifiability, research, neutrality, etc. Then the Education section of a geographic article could just start with a hatnote saying "See also:List of schools in ...." and discuss the nature, achievements and failures of local education. —— Shakescene ( talk) 02:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The high school that a notable individual attended is almost never worth noting in the subject's biography. Naming high schools tends to make biographies bottom heavy with too much emphasis on the subject's origins and not enough focus on the reason for notability. This issue are probably not an point of dispute among experienced editors, but school pride often leads to inclusion of high schools. These references should be deleted. G&E ( talk) 00:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
General comment on the misnomer "inherent notability" - when people who understand Wiki-notability speak of inherent notability, they mean There's a snowball's chance that it's not Wiki-notable, don't bother sending it to AFD on notability concerns, instead, spend your time adding citations. If you can't find any after a dilligent search, then you may have found the rare item in this category that is indeed not Wiki-notable. There is a snowball's chance that a head of state is not notable, therefore, using the slang "heads of state are inherently notable" as Wiki-policytalk slang is correct. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the Chains and franchises portion of this policy is inadequate. It merely states that a specific location of a franchise is not in most cases notable, which is very true. However, it does not state in any way, what makes a chain itself notable. I realize that this entire notability policy exists so that we wouldn't have millions of pages documenting every 100 sq ft mom'n'pop yarn store in the basements of Brooklyn. But I think that this policy should not apply as heavily on chains and franchises. If there was no press coverage of McDonald's (and frankly there quite seldomly is), I believe the size of its Wikipedia page wouldn't shrink a byte. The fact that the company strives so well that it has several locations possibly in several countries should be enough of a notability factor in itself. Just as Wikipedia, newspapers - no matter how local - do not document every opening of a big chain. Even if something important or tragic happened in a location, they would focus on the event and not the location. Often newspapers find these big chains such a de facto existance that they find no reason to bang the drum on something everybody already knows. As such, this coverage-by-independent-news-sources policy is often impossible to meet. Even so, I find a chain with thirty locations notable enough for an introductory Wikipedia page. Yet why isn't there one? -- 88.113.114.85 ( talk) 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've partially restored the information, leaving the examples out, which I found distracting. I think this is helpful redundancy, addressing real problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)