Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations)

Good start

Good start. Interested readers may also want to review WP:CORP and in fact this guideline may (or may not) want to acknowledge CORP and compare/contrast where appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Major problems

1) Dividing organisations into "national" and non-national makes little sense when some subnational entities have thousands of times the population of some independent states.
2) The proposal implies that any organisation that can be verified from a third party source is acceptable. This would cover for example a school chess club mentioned once in a local newspaper. I do not believe this is appropriate of in line with consensus. Piccadilly 18:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, the division of "national" and "non-national" can be summed up like this. A local historical society's activities are local (or non-national) in scope. Therefore, they are not notable unless it is established somehow like the Bohemian Club. IATSE, a labor union, is notable because their activities are international in scope. I guess this view is very US-centric but if we can reword this I think this is very viable.

To answer your second question, the proposal said media coverage that is not "trivial in nature" a small announcement that the chess club at some random high school would be trivial coverage. Also, I would like to set standard of recognition that excludes school and small local papers. Ideally the "bar of notability" would be set at a "Major regional" level. Specific coverage in a regional media outlet like San Francisco Chronicle. If somebody can help me craft a more detailed requirement on media coverage that would be most welcome. Dspserpico 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Different countries require different criteria. Something that's pretty big in California, but has little impact outside, is arguably more notable than an organisation that has national impact in New Zealand. (Apologies to new Zealanders.) --Runcorn 21:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair comment. Wikipedia is not meant to be US-centric. If an organization is notable in New Zealand, then it should be included in Wikipedia. But a line needs to be drawn for really small countries like Andorra, Lichtenstein or Luxembourg. Dspserpico 05:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dspserpico re: tiny countries. Pretty much any organization in Singapore is national in scope. Kla'quot 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Churches?

What do you think about adding churches to this criteria? Should churches have their own? Are they covered by an existing criteria?--Chaser T 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think churches can be a part of this but the structure of organization is so different from religion to religion. Heck, the Roman Catholic Church is organized totally differenly from Pentacostal Christianty, let alone Sunni Islam. I really don't know how to begin to tacle this. Dspserpico 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue about religious organizational structures, but contacting members of relevant wikiprojects seems a decent first step. I could do that if you think it's a good idea. I suppose religious institutions more generally is what I should have said, including local chapters and their buildings. btw, the spelling change was just what I saw in the article on the greek system (not a great source, i know).--Chaser T 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most churches on Wikipedia would be more notable for their architecture and their history than their present congregation, so I'm not sure how well the organization paradigm would apply.--Pharos 07:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CONG for a proposed guideline specific to religious organizations. Your input would be appreciated in helping to develop and improve those guidelines. Edison 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested on the discussion page for WP:CONG, the proposed guideline for local churches and other religious congregations, that to have such a guideline represents "instruction creep," so they should just be judged by this guideline. Since this guideline says that things with out a national or international influence do not deserve articles, and is designed to judge national and international organizations, it might be applicable to religious movements or denominations, but would in almost every case be inappropriate for judging a local congregation. They would all automatically be non-notable, unless they had, say, a televangelist preacher with a satellite channel. If WP:CONG fails to gain usage as a guideline, it would be better replaced with WP:LOCAL than by WP:ORG. Edison 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Way, way, WAY too broad!

As written, this pretty much includes every group that's ever had a write-up in the local newspaper. Frankly, I don't think that's enough. A group of kindergarden-age kids who pick up litter and plant flowers at the local park would easily get media coverage since it's a cute and heartwarming story, but that doesn't mean such a group would be notable or encyclopedic. In small towns, the activities of just about any group gets in the paper: if the local VFW holds a pancake supper, that gets an article. If the local boy sout troop collects cans of food for the poor, that gets an article. If any one of the local church ladies' groups holds a bake sale, there's another article. The same goes for student groups at a single school, which are virtually always AfDed by overwhelming consensus, but would theoretically be permissable under this policy if they get a write-up or two in the local paper. This policy as written would open the floodgates for all sorts of things. I think existing policy should be enough, but if it isn't then we must work out some sort of criteria beyond simple newspaper mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, they would not have national importance. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Placing the "bar of notability"

OK, I've excluded student newspapers as a means of assertion of notability, how can I do this for local (small town) newspapers. Do we make a requirement that the newspaper needs to subscription over a certain amount? Also, do you think I should delete the "Inclusion in third party published materials" line? I'm starting to think I should, but you input is most welcome. 12 June 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspserpico (talk • contribs)

I'd use the same bar for gauging periodical importance that other areas (CORP, MUSIC, BIO etc) use... ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so much about the size of the newspaper (or other source), or the locality of it, but whether notability is provided. Even major national news sources run what are called "human-interest" stories, of events and people which aren't really notable but still interesting to the reader or viewer for other reasons. So counting subscribers or viewers is pointless. Let's put it this way: Media coverage is good proof of notability, but isn't notability by itself. If that doesn't make sense at first, let's think of it in terms of examples.

(1) Let's say Tom Hanks wins the Best Actor Oscar next year, and the next morning a story about the win is on the front page of the New York Times. Hanks is certainly notable, but why? For getting in the newspaper? No, for winning the award, appearing in major motion pictures, etc. The newspaper verifies notability, but the newspaper doesn't grant notability.

(2) Imagine that, through a printing error or other happenstance, a news story which was supposed to go in page 19D of the Podunk County Herald ends up on the front page of the New York Times instead: "NEIGHBOR RESCUES CAT FROM TREE". Ok, there it is in black and white, seen and read by millions of people. But neither the neighbor, the cat, the tree, or the rescue itself would become any more notable as a result, and it would still be the same ho-hum everyday occurance that it would have been if it had never been reported at all.

The bad thing about this proposal is that unlike accepted guidelines like WP:MUSIC, this one seems to be all about media coverage, and that's it. That isn't good enough. Newspapers report on some stunningly non-notable things. If you don't believe me, run out and grab a copy of a newspaper. Any one will do. Read it from cover to cover, then ask yourself whether all the people, places, groups, and events you just read about should have their own encyclopedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But media coverage is not the only notability criteria listed. We're also considering the scope of activity. Democratic Party (United States) is notable because the scope of their operations is nationwide while the Ohlone Area Democratic Club is not because their scope of activities is just Fremont, California. Perhaps we should add a "notable membership" requirement. The Bohemian Club is notable, among other things, for having numerous political and business heavyweights in its membership. I do agree that media coverage is legit way of asserting notability but it can't be the only way. Dspserpico 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, if the page 19D story made the front page of the NYT, it WOULD be a notable story, not inherently, but because the NYT added notability. I see your point though. If this proposal currently isn't quite right, I suggest you try refining it! I feel that a guideline for organisations is very important, and would be a good thing to have, and would reduce some scuffling and confusion in AfD discussions. I don't think the originator, or any other participant so far actually disagrees with that, do they? The criticism seems to me to be about what criteria are used. {{sofixit}} !!!! ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is an organization notable because the newspaper/magazine is notable, or is it because of the number of subscribers who might have seen the subject matter? And is an organization notable merely because one high profile media source mentions a subject one time in an article? Or is it more likely that some organization is not-notable because it hasn't been mentioned in the press in over five years. Sensationalism sells newspapers, magazines and television programming. That in itself does cause some notability, for a period of time for some, but for others, they were notable in the first place. I think something should be said regarding the longevity as well as if the source was about the organization, or simply mentioned the organization in passing at the bottom of an article about some other topic entirely. example: "Michael Jackson donated $100 to the Smallville PTA." -- (1975) mentioned in passing by the Chicago Tribune in an article about reorganization of bond issues and school districts. Just some thoughts. Ste4k 04:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that notability is equivalent to notoriety, which is often the reason that organizations receive press. Other criteria should be considered, including membership totals, charitable activities, and longevity as a viable institution. WBardwin 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the language arbitrarily excluding "student run newspapers." A campus paper may be a more reliable and independent source than the corresponding town newspaper. Each source should be judged on its merits. There might be a campus paper at Yale, Harvard or Columbia which has an editorial board, a large print circulation, stated policies of journalistic integrity, a long record of publishing, and which may have won journalism awards. At colleges I attended, the campus paper was not an uncritical endorser of campus arts groups, professors, the administration, or the sports teams, and loved to criticize them. Granted, at some small colleges, the president may dictate the paper policy and content. In high schools or lower level schools, I would not expect independence on the part of the school paper. But in some towns, the Mayor or business and commercial leaders dictate the paper's editorial policies and news coverage. A town paper or even the Chicago Tribune or major New York City or Washington DC papers or TV news networks may be run at times by political extremists and may have famous cases of publishing blatantly untrue stories. The Chicago Tribune is famous for claiming that President Franklin Roosevelt got his marching orders from Stalin, and for defending the police after they shot some Black Panther militants in their apartment by showing "bullet holes" in the door to prove the militants had shot at the police, but in fact the "bullet holes" were nail heads where clothes had been hung. The Chicago Tribune has endorsed only Republican Presidential candidates since 1872. CBS News ran stories about Bush's National Guard service based on documents which were fakes. Yet most would consider the paper or the network news department a verifiable, independent and reliable source. The papers owned by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer invented "yellow journalism." The New York Times had a reporter, recently had a reporter who simply made up stories. There is no basis for arbitrarily excluding a campus paper any more than for arbitrarily excluding in including a town newspaper as a source for notability of an organization in that town. Edison 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted due to lack of consensus to remove it. I think it's pretty much common-sense that any article whose notability relies on being mentioned in, say, a high-school newspaper is a guaranteed delete. That's not to say that every word in the New York Times is true, but at least it's got the name of a professional journalist attached to it, and by extension a professional editorial team. It's tough to expect the same standards of reliability from 13-year-old Kristi who writes all her articles during the five-minute gap between study hall and lunch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion about CAMPUS PAPERS AT UNIVERSITIES in the previous paragraph? Please address the arguments made there that campus newspaper can be sources to support notability and do not rely on strawman arguments about "13 year old Kristi." I am once more deleting the section about campus papers until a rationale is presented here why they all inherently unreliable or nonindependent or nonverifiable, with being judged on their merits. There was never any consensus for them to be excluded. Explain why The Harvard Crimson and Columbia Daily Spectator have no credibility. Edison 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Starblind read it and I can assure you that I did. 13 year old Kristi is a rhetorical example but definitely not a strawman. I can't even begin to count the number of discussions where users have misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted our standards and attempted to claim that something's been "published" or is "verified" because it was published in their high school paper. Those are not the standards which we can build the encyclopedia upon. Furthermore, I will tell you from personal experience that most college-level newspapers are little better. They are run by students with little time, less experience and inconsistent oversight.
Your point that small-town newspapers can be equally unreliable is taken but with some qualifications. First, I'll point out that small-town newspapers are themselves deeply discounted when used as sources. However, even a small-town paper is generally run by a staff with financial accountability for the accuracy of the paper's contents. If they are found to be wrong too often, readers switch sources. College papers, even major ones like Harvard, are staffed by students who will shortly move on.
None of this guarantees that a major paper is always right nor that a college paper is always wrong. However, it does create a probability that we must consider. The general rule that student-run newspapers do not meet the standards of reliable sources has been a net positive for the project.
By the way, some of your allegations of bias among major papers are irrelevant for our situation. For example, endorsements of political candidates are decisions limited to the editorial pages. Others of your examples are historical and predate the controls that have been instituted by major papers (controls which, by the way, are generally lacking in student papers). Can they still be mistaken? Lie? Certainly. But the fact that you know about the cases you cited and can describe them so easily is evidence that their controls are largely working and that misrepresentations are caught and disclosed by the competition. The kinds of events which are "sourced" by student-run papers are not going to be covered by any other entity, making verification functionally impossible.
Sorry for the long, rambling response but you raised a complicated issue. It's a question of judgment about the net benefits and costs of the rule. On balance, my experience in deletion and sourcing debates confirms my opinion that we are better off with the clean rule to exclude student-run papers as sources. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please state where you find the policy "The general rule that student-run newspapers do not meet the standards of reliable sources has been a net positive for the project." I have not seen that as a Wikipedia policy. Please stop dragging in the strawman of the high school paper, which I have from the first discounted. I am referring to college papers with independent editorial boards and policies of editorial review. These papers have had such editors as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was never "13 year old Kristi" when he wrote for his college paper. College papers to which I refer do have financial accountability. You agree that town newspaper used to have problems, but you claim that the fact I can cite flaws in their reporting proves that now they have good editorial control. The flaws were rarely disclosed by their own editorial controls, and were more often exposes by their competitors, a control which also keeps college papers on their toes. The lapses at usually reliable big city newspapers have not stopped yet. The Chicago Sun Times was criticized within the past month for going very easy on Macys, a store which had purchased lots of ads, such that the Sun Times said little about declining sales compared to the coverage of consumer discontent, declining sales, and management changes in the Chicago Tribune. I will match my experience in deletions against yours cheerfully, I want reliable college papers included as sources for notability and as sources about things on campus, just as we would use a town paper as a source for events in the town. You have not stated a policy or a rational basis for excluding them. I want to assume good intentions, but the only real rationale I can see is that if they are excluded, it will be easier to delete articles about organizations on college campuses for lack of sources. Please look at WP:RS and see if it excludes college papers. Please do not try to lump them in with high school , grade school, or kindergarten papers as all being "student run papers" which is a pretty meaningless term. Edison 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't honestly think of a single article supported only by student-paper sources that was kept at AfD, ever, even before WP:ORG existed. Student groups at a single school are virtually always deleted, and even those at multiple schools need coverage from non-school sources. This isn't some evil Wikipedia bias against student papers, just an acknowledgement that student papers don't make good sources for serious research. I know if I had handed in a paper in college (or even high school) that relied on student-newspaper sources, I would have gotten it back with nasty red-pen remarks that it isn't reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one did not say I wanted articles whose notability was attested ONLY by the local college paper. If we want MULTIPLE reliable, verifiable, and independent references, and if one of those is, say, the Atlantic Monthly and one is the Harvard Crimson, I would say we had 2 references, not 1. Having ONLY campus paper articles would be comparable to having ONLY hometown (not talking major metropolis) articles. The source closer to the subject is likely to have more detail, which contributes to an article. I myself would like to see more than just articles in a small town paper, but I would not exclude them all arbitrarily. I just would like to see an acknowledgment that all sources have to be judged on their merits, meaning that not all non-college campus papers are reliable and independent, and not all campus papers are unreliable and dependent. This seems the less doctrinaire and capricious policy. I would be happy to exclude highschool/grade school papers as attesting to notability because they are never independent of the Principal. I would in general like to see more than articles in the campus paper, just as I would like to see more than articles in the small hometown paper. I would go along with a criterion that more than coverage on the college paper is required, just as I would like to see more than coverage of something in the small town paper to prove it is notable enough for an article. But I would be fairly comfortable witha couple of regional or national articles and a college paper or small local paper to show notability. Edison 05:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

section break to facilitate editing

If a college campus student-run newspaper has an independent editorial review board and a policy of editorial review of stories, which are written by identified reporters, it should not be arbitrarily excluded as a reliable source. It can be an independent, verifiable, and reliable source to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. It can partially satisfy WP:N by showing that something on campus is notable within the college community (which might total 40,000 people), the same as the noncampus town paper or the local TV station could furnish verification and attestation of local notability for similar groups off campus. A city newspaper, even in London or New York City, is subject to withdrawal of ad revenue by merchants or to withdrawal of city hall and police dept sources by the Mayor. I see campus papers as "notability-supporters" for things on a campus. For a campus arts group, I would like in addition to see 1 or 2 noncampus reliable, independent and verifiable sources. If they have only local(on campus) notability, then per WP:LOCAL the key facts in the article could be greatly condensed and included in the University's article. There is no statement in WP:MUS orWP:ORG that campus groups are inherently non-notable. They must be judged on their own merits the same as anything else. A lengthy story about a group or a review of a performance is not inherently trivial, unreliable, or dependent just because it is in a campus paper any more than if it were in a comparable city paper in a comparable sized community., We have thousands of articles about rock/pop/rap bands which lack sources even as good as a high quality college campus paper, and rely on only online coverage and their own websites, and editors seem comfortable keeping those. Notability should not be a matter of “ILIKEIT” but rather of whether the thing has been “noted” in MULTIPLE reliable, verifiable and independent sources. Could we compromise on language such as “2. Independent student-run college newspapers can be cited as sources to show that campus organizations exist and as sources of information about them. While stories in such a campus paper with a campus organization as their primary source can help to demonstrate notability, additional independent sources are needed to fulfill WP:N.” Edison 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the intent of that clause. It would be nice if we could say the same thing in fewer words. I would also like a footnote clearly establishing the standards that you have described for an "independent" student newspaper and listing the Harvard paper as an example of what we expect for a student newspaper. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do wordsmithing if the thing can be said more succinctly. The intent is to include campus sources for campus organizations, because they are likely to have more detail IF the thing is judged notable. But I would generally like to see coverage in a regional or national paper, magazine, or TV show in addition to however many articles in the campus paper. I suppose the bare minimum would be campus coverage plus at least one good nontrivial national sources where the group is the (or a) primary subject. This acknowledges the statement above that organizations with nothing more than coverage in a campus paper have not been surviving AFDs. That would be more than most Wikipedia articles presently have, since in random article searches I find so many with no sources or sourced only to their own website. Edison 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Proposed re-wording below. I think that it preserves Edison's proposed meaning. Please edit. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Independent student-run college newspapers may be a source for information on campus organizations but additional independent sources are needed to fulfill WP:N. ¹

^Note 1 : "Independent" student-run newspapers are characterized by an independent editorial review board and a policy of editorial review of stories which are written by identified reporters similar to the practices and standards used by The Harvard Crimson or Columbia Daily Spectator. Papers without such standards do not meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources.

Sounds good. So a college paper where the president dictates what appears in the paper, or which acts like a blog where anyone can put anything in it anonymously or without editorial review does not qualify.Edison 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So one or more articles in a campus paper like the Harvard Crimson, plus at least one in a good non-campus paper, could be considered "MULTIPLE?"Edison 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the content of those articles-if only two, they'd have to both be very in-depth in order to provide enough source material for a decent article, especially if the group made the school and "other" paper for the same reason or due to the same event. On the other hand, if it's something that different aspects of have been catalogued in-depth by a school paper and some other paper, that might be enough. Personally, I'd hinge toward "very likely not except in exceptional circumstances" in terms of just the school paper and one other though-a school paper mentioning a school organization is a pretty trivial mention. Seraphimblade 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making this far too complicated. WP:ORG, like WP:MUSIC and the rest, is supposed to be an at-a-glance guideline that simplifies WP:N WP:V and WP:RS in the context of a certain type of article, in this case groups, clubs, guilds, etc. I think Edison has a very good point that some student papers are better than others, but I'd also say that an article that relies on student-newspaper sources to establish its notability doesn't stand a snowball's chance in heck to pass an AfD vote, and there's miles of precedent to back that up. Any organisation whose scope is so limited that it can't manage two articles in non-student publications is outside the reach of what we can reasonably cover as a general-interest encyclopedia. That's not just my opinion, that's years of consensus on AfD, and that's what any notability guideline should reflect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try another viewpoint: If it is the subject of 2 articles in non-stident publications, and its notability is judged marginal since there are only 2 independent references (again, this is way better that most Wikipedia articles found by random search) would a third (or more articles) in the campus paper (Harvard, Colunbia, Penn quality) add something to the groups notabiliyt, and sometimes push it over the edge? And again I am not talking about a "mention" or a directory type coverage of "the following 45 arts groups exist on campus," but an in-depth profile? I have seen claims in AFD debates that "A campus paper cannot contribute at all toward notability" which seems an extremely arbitrary position. Edison 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If something is the subject of 2 articles in non-stident publications, then an AfD could really go either way, and I'm not sure adding a student-newspaper source would help one way or another. I think AfD commenters recognise that there's an inherent tendency in student newspapers to report on school activities, and indeed that's one of the very reasons school newspapers exist. It's may not be a "payola" sort of situation, just the general effect of school spirit and the fact that many of those working at student newspapers may have friends in the clubs and activities on which they report. AfD commenters expect sources to be wholly independent/unconnected from the subject, and that makes quite a lot of sense to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

But the same desire to promote local organizations or friends of the reporter or publisher exist in all newspapers to varying extents. So this claim needs some reliable source showing that a good campus paper (Columbia, Harvard) is in every case more subject to this than a newspaper not on campus. Can you find a book on hournalism which says that the Chicago Tribune, the Hearst newspapers, the New York or London papers never have "town spirit" akin to school spirit, and that the reporters and publishers of such papers do not have friends in the organizations, clubs, and activities on which they report? Or that reporter at city papers do not get favors such as expensive meals or cases of their favorite booze or vacation trips provided by those on whom they report favorably? You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that reporters and editors at high quality campus papers are more corrupt that their counterparts off campus. A campus arts group does not have the deep pockets of an entrepeneur and his publicist, nor can they cause much fear with threats to pull their pages of advertising. You have still not given any non-subjective reason for the total exclusion of campus papers as signs of notability, so the text must be changed until you can furnish more of a rationale than hand waving and "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can organizations lose notability?

I am looking at Coin Coalition. It was an organization created by a vendor trade organization to lobby for getting rid of the US 1 dollar bill. This was back in 2000-2001. I have not seen anything in the news (using google) for anything since 2003. The domain name was orphaned, and the director of the group has died. It was probably marginally notable in 2001-2002, but it probably doesn't even exist anymore. The creator of the article started it in 2004 and has not contributed to Wikipedia (under that name) since Jan 2005. If someone created the page today, it would be deleted. Should it be deleted now, or is it grandfathered in? Thanks for any advice you might give. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia is not a directory of major current institutions, but a universal historical encyclopedia. If something was notable once, it will always be notable. This was a major trade industry group; it would be notable whether the article was created today or five years ago.--Pharos 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Woefully inadequate

The proposal is woefully inadequate and with all due respect consists of one criterion: is it "local" or not local (i.e. national, international)? It may be that an organization only operates in California, or Alaska, or Western Australia, or Quebec because of some unique characteristic of those places. The proposal ought to include organizations that are notable within a sub-division of a federal state (i.e. provincial orgs, state orgs). Other criteria ought to include: membership size; length of operation; size of budget; whether or not the org is registered with its national tax authority as a charity; notable "alumni", sponsors, or chairpeople; acheivements; nature of operations; size of events it operates, sponsors, or organizes; etc. Agent 86 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just started a new Organizations WikiProject and Portal, both of which remain under construction for the time being, but the fact is that there has to be a way for us to classify so-called insignificant organizations. There may be unions, associations and foundations that are local or regional in nature, but do not meet the classical 'notability' criterion. A local or regional group may have only a handful of directors or a couple hundred members and be notable and very important to a local community or for related group looking for partnerships outside their area. If you want to help forge a space for these types of entities on wikipedia I urge you to join in our efforts. I will add our project template to the top of this page in a minute. Cheers. Oldsoul 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Local organisations?

According to the first point of this proposed guideline "organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale". It then adds a verifiability criterion.

However, the second point, saying that "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found" basically limits itself to the issue of verifiability with no attempt to define what would make a local organisation notable beyond this.

This comes up occasionally with student societies on AFD, where some participants claim dogmatically that student societies that only exist at one school are never notable. This is a problematic claim, and I expect that most people would agree that, for instance, the Porcellian Club is notable enough. (Despite not being Ameican myself, I am using an American example; it will be more familiar to more participants, and it is a useful contrast to the common American pattern of large national fraternities with individual chapters.)

The question I would like to ask is: if the Porcellian Club is notable, what is it that makes it so? Can these criteria be applied more generally? up+land 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is, although I haven't really looked. A better example might be Skull and Bones. An organization with a local scope of activities is only notable if it is well-known outside that local scope. Normally, just having notable alumni isn't enough. Basically, they have to have some verifiable notoriety outside the local scope. If you mention Skull and Bones outside a group of Yale graduates, is there a chance someone else would know what you are talking about. In that case, there has been quite a bit of national press (not necessarily good) about Skull and Bones. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What about longevity? Especially in areas not known for longevity? If a authors support group met every wednesday at the local coffee shop, that is not notable. If that same group met consistently for 20+ years, changing membership but never disbanding, and consistently producing published writers, is that notable? If a christian youth camping group held a nationally known campout twice a year for 30 years with attendees from all over the US, was listed in many publications listing this type of event, but never had articles or books written JUST about them, are they notable purely for having to continued to do what they do for so long? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion and suggestion of merge

I was bold and restored the {{proposed}} template to the proposed article. If there is consensus to "closing" the proposal, I have no problem with that, but I could find no discussion anywhere on a consensus to move it into the historical bin. I have left the "merge" template; however, I can find no discussion supporting the rationale for a merger. I do not think it should be merged. Corporations and organizations are not necessarily the same; in fact, they are often very different creatures (including in terms of structure, membership, legal basis for existence, operations, etc.). Agent 86 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• {{historical}} isn't "closing" the debate, it is simply an indication that debate has died down (indeed, the last edit on this page was a couple of months ago). If you want to discuss this page further, that's perfectly fine, but I'd recommend advertising it (e.g. on WP:VP) to get some outside opinions. If nobody seems interested in a proposal, it'll eventually drop into historical.
• Regarding the merging, I agree that a corporation is not the same as an organization, but I believe the same guideline could apply to both (WP:CORP could be renamed and its scope broadened a bit to include this; and also, WP:CORP has broader input than this). >Radiant< 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people are being way to aggressive with the historical tag. A proposed policy or guideline doesn't become historical solely beacuse it isn't being edited any more, it also needs to be not used any more. This proposal is referenced in AfD discussions regularly, so is certainly not historical.

That said, WP:CORP is certainly in better shape than this, but it would need significant reqork to do a good job covering organizations, so a merge is not now appropriate in my eyes. GRBerry 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• That would be me. The reason is that CAT:PRO had about two hundred proposals in it. Based on lack of recent edits, I tagged about two-thirds of those as historical to clear out the cat. Turns out I was correct in about 95% of the cases.
• Anyway. I don't really see evidence (in whatlinkshere) of this page being referenced in AFD. I think it's a good idea in principle, but it would require dragging in some more people to discuss. It would also be possible to add a few words to WP:CORP to broaden that page's scope to include this page's scope. >Radiant< 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The evidence is more readily visible at the whatlinkshere for the shortcut. Although reviewing that, my contributions may be 10% to 20% of the links in AFD discussions. Clearly not being used very widely. If you can see how to expand WP:CORP to cover this, by all means propose it - probably better over at the talkpage therefore than here, given relative prominence. GRBerry 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the recommendation to merge. The WP:CORP page was originally written and has since been edited with non-corporate organizations in mind. The title of WP:CORP does give the impression that it's more restrictive but I think the best answer is to rename WP:CORP, not to fork the rule.

The only substantive difference between a "corporation" and all other forms of "organization" is legal structure. WP:CORP has some clauses that don't apply to a non-profit (like the market indices criterion) but that's okay. You only need one criterion to apply and the only real criterion on this page is already listed there. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(We seem to be having this same discussion (though less of it) over on Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations). I posted this over there as the "discuss" link pointed me there first.)

I concur on merging this with WP:ORG and renaming to "Companies and Organizations" or something similar. Companies and Corporations is a bit like saying Simians and Apes. Also, for the Notability notice template, we need to be able to provide an {{Notability|organization}} argument. Y'all think? — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

— me, there

Support the Merger (soon) I support the title "Companies and Organizations" or the equally preferable "Organizations and Companies". In my mind companies are subset of organizations, but some people may identify the word organization with volunteerism or non-commercial enterprises. Corporations should not be distiguished since they are (like partnerships, proprietorships etc.) only a legal form of an organization irrelevant to our purposes. I would also like to see much more clarity and simplicty in the definitions of notability, developed along with the merger; the current page seems over burdened with special cases which could be relocated to sub-pages. Kevin Murray 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Text for a merged page - "Organizations & Companies"

NOTABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS & COMPANIES

An organization or company, as defined below, is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. The organization has had a substantial and demonstrable effect on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

• Please consider not only the importance of the organization, but also the importance of its effect including how it affects a culture, discipline or industry.

• By nature large organizations are more likely to be notable; however, smaller organizations can be notable just as individuals can be notable.

2. The organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. In all cases the neutrality, independence, and credibility of the source should be considered.

• Examples of Published Works can be in many forms of media, such as newspapers, periodicals, books, television, published reports by governmental and other organizations, and credible web-sources.

• Specific Exclusions of Published Sources are: press releases, advertising and quotes of press releases or advertising in independent articles. Interviews or other sources where the organization talks about itself are not to be considered independent. Published notices, such as articles or lists that simply show: shopping hours, telephone numbers and addresses are considered trivial.

DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATIONS & COMPANIES

These guidelines should be applied to any group of people interacting for a purpose commercial, charitable, social, or otherwise constitute an organization, this includes: charities, religions, clubs, companies, corporations, partnerships, societies, chains, franchises, etc.

 *Please note that I would move discussions of products and services, and issues of special cases to other pages (if there is merit to the special case).  There is already
  a separate page which displays and discusses precedents ; I believe that examples discussing specific criteria such as indices etc. should be featured there, 
  otherwise we have potential for redundancy, conflict, and confusion.  I believe that this format is simple, clear, and concise; furthermore it allows the combination
  of two somewhat redundant pages: "Companies and Corporations" and "Organizations."

Kevin Murray 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Magnificent and tactful job of condensation. I assume these are guidelines, because there are exceptions in both a positive and negative sense. For example an interview with a particular important trade publication may be independent, reliability coming from the reputation of the interviewer. (I am NOT suggesting this as a specific change to the text above, just as an example. )

What I do suggest is that we need some guidelines for notability of parent vs. branches, as quite a lot of fighting takes place over this. and perhaps you will be able to do this next in such a way that it will have general applicability. DGG 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, these two comments have been copied to the Companys & Corporations discussion. --Kevin Murray 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not discuss this here. Go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations) to keep discussion central. >Radiant< 09:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Charities

Can we expand this guideline to include Charities? The notability criteria would, I feel, be the same but it would be nice to see them covered. - Foxhill 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; in fact, I took the existing proposal to mean that it did include charities. That is why one of the criteria I suggested above included consideration of whether or not the organization is registered with the tax authority or similar government body as a charity within the jurisdiction in which it operates. While many of the criteria would be the same, charities may have a few unique characteristics that require consideration in preparing the guideline. For example, a charitable body may not have to be "incorporated" in many places. They might be established by a trust or in the form of a foundation, so other factors will have to be considered. Agent 86 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ORG Namepsace

I have just switched the redirect to point towards the relevant WikiProject. Hope this doesn't bork too many of your links. Let me know if you need any help re-naming them. Oldsoul 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it does bork many of the links (Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:ORG) so you probably shouldn't be changing a rather-heavily-used shortcut to some other location. Perhaps the (apparently new-ish) wikiproject can think of an alternative shortcut? >Radiant< 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deadline Merger to Organizations & Companies

In December I began a renewed discussion to merge Organizations with Companies and Corporations, and delete the term "corporation" from the title as it is a sub-class of company. In my mind a company is sub-class of Organization, but people seem to equate organization with non-profit, so "Company was kept for clarity.

Among the central ideas was to eliminate all of the special conditions from the combined page, since this is about as muddled as the US Tax Code now. The idea is to offer a precedents page.

In mid-January I suggested closing the discussion at the end of January '07 and move to a consensus, with the goal of developing the text for the new combined page by mid-February.

The vote is now open at Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations)

--Kevin Murray 03:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)