Talk:NSF International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This reads somehow like a commercial. Can someone add substance to it? There are lots of open questions, such as: who recognises the standards developed by NSF International? How is the governance of NSF International structured (membership, board of directors)? phom 2007-05-05.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-Removed Advert added in 2007 for the now mature and unbiased article. sckirklan (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Added some board of directors stuff .Seems hard to come by recent information. If anyone has further info please post. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The board of directors info is outdated and inaccurate. Because that info is no longer available on NSF's public website and cannot be verified, I would like to suggest the board section be removed at this point.Ierlewine (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


NSF International is clearly notable, with literally thousands of references in RS sources [1][2][3]. I'm astounded that someone could think otherwise, though I suppose it wouldn't be WP:AGF to onder about their motives. :-/ --Insider201283 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't a single independent reference cited in the article to demonstrate notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've looked through some of those searches you cited and I didn't find anything more than passing mention of NSF in most, several of the sources are self-published, and many are not WP:RS. How about you put forth a few specific exmaples that demonstrate that this complies with WP:NOT and I'll remove the tag. I'm on the fence about whether this should be nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the tag does not state as fact that the subject is non-notable; merely that the article lacks reliable, secondary sources that would demonstrate notability, and it provides an editorial suggestion that such sources should be added. So there's no need for innuendo about motives (and cf. WP:POT) -- just use proper sources when you write an article and then it won't get a WP:NOT tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The article itself must document notability through citation of independent and reliable sources. It is not enough to make claims of notability on the talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, the article itself does not need to document notability in order to determine notability. Obviously notability should be obvious in a well written and sourced article, which this one is not. Notability is determined if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As ImperfectlyInformed noted - "questioning the notability of NSF makes Wikipedia look silly". Not only wikipedia I must say. There is already a tag noting the need to add sources. How about you spend some time finding sources and improving the article? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, the gets more quality driven! I like it.--Symposiarch (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)