Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Major problems 2 Churches? 3 Way, way, WAY too broad! 4 Placing the "bar of notability" 5 Can organizations lose notability? 6 Woefully inadequate 7 Local organisations? 8 Ongoing discussion and suggestion of merge

[edit] 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)

[edit] Churches?

What do you think about adding churches to this criteria? Should churches have their own? Are they covered by an existing criteria?--Kchase02 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).--Kchase02 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? Tupsharru 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)

[edit] 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