Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
| Notability and inclusion guidelines |
|---|
| Notability guidelines |
|
Fiction |
| Active proposals |
| See also |
The following is a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this proposal covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose.
Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.
This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
Contents |
[edit] Primary criterion
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works. Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.
Examples of sources to satisfy the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
[edit] Special note: advertising and promotion
Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy of long standing. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order of precedence:
- Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
- Delete remaining advertising content from the article
- Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.
[edit] Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations
The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. However, the text of the article must be supported by independent sources, and avoid primary research. Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated.
[edit] Non-commercial organizations
Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above. Other criteria are:
- Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
- Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
[edit] Commercial matters
[edit] Chains and franchises
Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores. In a few rare cases, an individual location will also have architectural peculiarities that makes it unique and notable, such as the Winston-Salem Shell gas station or the Vinita, Oklahoma McDonald's; however, a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative. Also, an exception can be made if some major event took place at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name which describes the event, not the location (see San Ysidro McDonald's massacre for an example).
[edit] Recommendations for products and services
Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style.
If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services.
If a non-notable product or service has been written about in its own article, be bold and rename, refactor, or merge the article into an article with a broader scope, such as the company's article, creating it if necessary.
[edit] Notes
- Note 1: Examples:
- Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
- The Oxford Union satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.
- Note 2: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)
- Wikipedia:Autobiography (for companies that are creating articles about themselves)
