Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.

Note: Companies and Corporations was merged with Organizations (notability) on 2-3-07 per consensus reached that date at talk for the former, with redirected discussion from the latter. Please comment here prior to making large changes. However, please fine tune to remove obvious gaffs by the editor who combined the topics. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations)
• Archive of discussions of Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion.

• Archive1 of this Talk Page
• Archive2 of this Talk Page

Contents 1 Local companies, restaurants, etc. 2 Proposal to remove Note 1 3 the separate schools guideline has failed to reach a consensus 3.1 Proposed schools section 4 A new proposal 5 Non-commercial orgs, redux 6 Updated to current Primary Criterion at WP:N 7 Dispute tag 8 Regarding political organizations

[edit] Local companies, restaurants, etc.

Current policy reads:

A company [etc.] is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: independent of [it]; reliable.

includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles...except... works where the company...talks about itself; ... Works carrying merely trivial coverage

If you take this wording seriously, it is enough for a restaurant to be reviewed in a few newspapers, or mentioned in a few guidebooks, which hardly seems "notable". Here in Cambridge (Mass.), if you open a restaurant with any pretentions at all (not a sandwich shop), you are surely going to get reviewed by the Cambridge Chronicle (local serious paper), the Cambridge Tab, the Boston Phoenix, the Improper Bostonian (local free newspapers) and with any luck, the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and Boston Magazine. You might also get reviewed in the Harvard Crimson (Harvard student newspaper), the Tech (M.I.T. student newspaper), Harvard Magazine (alumni magazine), etc. But how does that make you notable? --Macrakis 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• unfortunately, if we ask for multiple non-local publication, it excludes much valid local history. I do not see a solution, except to begin to abandon the principle that Notability is demonstrated by publication rather than accomplishments. The restaurant problem is real in general--almost all restaurants get reviewed by local papers--and setting a special rule for them is probably excessive rule creep. DGG 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Part of the problem is that somewhere along the line, "verifiability" became conflated with "notability". I suppose it runs on the theory that if something gets a lot of press, it must be notable. However, that's like saying popularity and notability are the same (and maybe they are, in some aspects). It also overlooks the fact that the media can spend a lot of time on stories that are about trivial matters or fluff pieces but are interesting or draw in the viewers. I know this is really a discussion for WP:N itself, but the problem carries over to here. Agent 86 20:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• I consider a local restaurant review to be equivalent to a local business review - verified but not non-trivial. Given enough time, essentially any restaurant will be reviewed by someone. There is no degree of exclusivity in the selection of restaurant reviews at the local level. On the other hand, if a restaurant gets covered by the Michelin Guide or a publication with that level of exclusivity, I'll give it a lot more weight.
  A business needs to do more than merely open its doors and serve customers to earn an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no dichotomy here. A newspaper's regular reviews of local businesses (whether it's a restaurant review or some type of weekly "Local business feature") are trivial, they happen all the time and eventually everything will get one. WP:N requires non-trivial mention. There's no need for new rules or alarm, the ones we've got are just fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should a restaurant have to meet a higher standard than an author, academic, or charity? If it has been reviewed by an acceptable source, then it's in. Just because one person preferes the Michelin Guide to the Kansas City Star, or Pierpont Upnoses's Culinary Clammerings to the New York Times should be irrelevant if the sources meet WP:VERIFY. --Kevin Murray 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Because if we accept trivial, routine news coverage, we'll have articles on Santa Claus' 2007 appearance at Municipal Park or Obituaries on March 20, 2007 for San Francisco. (Those better never turn blue.) Both of these things are routinely reported in newspapers, even multiple ones, and they are appropriate for the paper's scope-a local audience who expects such coverage out of a local paper, and which covers events which are newsworthy to that population. On the other hand, they are not appropriate to our scope, as an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience, even if they in the most technical sense fulfill WP:N. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The PNC explicitly says non-trivial. You cannot base an argument upon the notion that published works that have no depth of content, and are trivial, satisfy it. You are also making the mistake of thinking that size and geographical extent of readership are relevant. Readership is not relevant. Thinking that it is is to mistake notability for fame and importance. We don't exclude obscure species of beetles because they are of interest only to a small segment of the world's population. Worldwide fame and importance are not criteria here. Uncle G 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agent86, Rossami, and Seraphimblade bring up a good point -- that if a review is essentially automatic, it is not meaningful, just like being in the Yellow Pages or the Thomas Directory. On the other hand, I don't think showing up in guidebooks is an indication of notability, either. After all, Wikipedia is neither a restaurant reviewing site nor a directory of restaurant reviews. There are thousands of restaurants in France in the Michelin and Gault et Millau and other guides that don't seem like material for an encyclopedia article. Now, three-star restaurants might merit an article....

      Even the invention of some famous dish, e.g. fried clams at Woodman's of Essex, or Caesar salad at the Hotel Caesar in Tijuana or fettuccine Alfredo at Alfredo's trattoria in Rome (well, he didn't invent it, but the name comes from him...) -- even that really isn't enough, since there's not much else to say about these places besides the invention of the dish. Same thing for a notorious mobster shooting, or the place where some well-known socialite made a witty comment.

      What would make a restaurant notable in itself is that the restaurant, not the dish, nor the event has something special about it: Sardi's of New York or as a hangout of celebrities; Chez Panisse as the starting place of California cuisine and lots of other things; that sounds like notability.

      We don't need any new nit-picking policy, we just need to say the the primary criterion for notability is, well, notability, not some count of mentions in print -- those are just minimums. --Macrakis 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

      • You, too, are conflating notability with fame and importance, as well as basing your argument on the erroneous idea that notability is subjective. There are plenty of notable things that are neither famous nor important. There are even (cf. Anna Marek (AfD discussion)) famous things that aren't notable — things that are widely recognized, but that no-one has ever considered notable enough to sit down and create non-trivial published works of their own about. Fame and importance are not criteria for having or not having articles here. And notability is not a personal "Well, I think that it's special!" judgement on the part of Wikipedia editors. There are plenty of encyclopaedia subjects that are not special. Being distinctive is not the same as being notable.

        The criterion that is staring you in the face is your very own words: "there's not much else to say about these places besides the invention of the dish". The reason that there's not much else to say is that there aren't the non-trivial published works available from which such further things to say can be gleaned. There are no histories, documentaries, analyses, and so forth of them. Their only mention is tangential or brief in works whose primary subjects are other things. (And hence that is how they should be handled in Wikipedia, too.) And that's what the PNC is: multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject. No concepts of fame, importance, specialness, or non-locality are involved.

        The entire "restaurant review" argument is a perennial one that is entirely bogus. It completely ignores the word "non-trivial" in the PNC. Every part of the PNC is important. Two sentences in some guidebook giving the restaurant's telephone number, address, and opening hours, and recommending the swordfish steak aren't "non-trivial". That doesn't satisfy the PNC and so doesn't mean that the restaurant deserves an article. Conversely, a guide book that gives a 3-page in-depth discussion of the restaurant's architecture, history, ownership, cultural influence and so forth is non-trivial. That (as long as there are multiple such works, and they are from sources independent of the subject) does satisfy the PNC. Uncle G 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

        • You have a good point, but it's also unclear whether such guide books would qualify as secondary sources-quite often, those rely on press releases or other information provided by the businesses themselves. On the other hand, if some restaurant had received tons of secondary source mention for (as you said) its unique architecture, history, etc., it would be notable. I think, quite realistically, that in many of these discussions, everyone involved ends up saying the same thing in a few different ways. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know what size of town or what quality of newspaper Seraphimblade or Rossami are familiar with. In my medium sized town, the local newspaper may have reviews of unusual restaurants or of destination restaurants (ones you would drive a long way to reach) but in decades, many of the lesser neighborhood restaurants have been ignored completely, other than as a directory type listing which we specifically exclude as an index of notability. If the newspaper in a town has a story with a particular restaurant as a primary subject, that specifically meets the requirement of WP:N that there be "sufficient source material to include a verifiable, encyclopedic article about each topic." Such a restaurant review is clearly one part of "multiple, non-trivial, independent published works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article." If the restaurant has been written about in a nontrivial way numerous times, it meets the notability threshold. I have not seen articles even in my own medium sized town about every neighborhood restaurant, no matter how many decades you wait, so that argument is a red herring. If there are good sources sufficient to write a good article, since Wikipedia is not paper, we should have the article. I do not see the basis for raising the bar so that a restuarant could have been the subject of multiple independent articles in reliable sources, i.e. the newspapers of all the surrounding towns, and this could be rejected since it is not internationally famous, when from AFDs people are happy to keep articles which have no nontrivial and independent sources, just because there is a project to create the article (roads, minor British aristocracy, videogame and cartoon characters, porn actors). If a restaurant, church, school, shopping mall, or library has sources to satisfy WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N, it is senseless to erect barriers so that those particular entities have to meet a super level of notability that is not imposed on other subjects. Edison 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove Note 1

This note is misleading for several reasons: (1) it only describes books as sources, (2) it over emphasises single subject references, and (3) it emphasizes on print media. I think that the critereon is self explantatory; this note is not necessary and potentially confusing. --Kevin Murray 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• As the note explicitly states, it's a set of examples, showing how the criterion works in practice. It doesn't emphasize anything. It's a footnote. We used to have several more examples in that note. We had the Mavalli Tiffin Rooms in the earliest versions, for example. Another example that could be added is BETDAQ (AfD discussion). Uncle G 22:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • G-wizz G, do we really think that our editors can't figure out that a book is printed material? OK, I'm kidding a bit. How does offering a complicated list of examples clarify the point? --Kevin Murray 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Your first question is a non-sequitur. Your second question takes a falsehood as its premise and is unanswerable. It's not a complicated list. It's quite a simple list. Uncle G 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You are cleverly taking the focus off the issue and focusing on my attempt at humor. Complicated is relative, and if there is no need for examples, any list adds complication. The foul here is in the subtle manipualtion of the examples. --Kevin Murray 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's your non-sequitur that took the focus off the issue, not I. And there's no subtle manipulation of anything. It's a footnote. Giving examples. Uncle G 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Denial is not a valid argument. If you don't see the problem by now, we should just agree to disagree and move on. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • BETDAQ shows twelve footnotes. While a paragon of bibliography, it is not a valid example. Picking the wrong examples can bias the impression of the readers. Let's not try to micro-manage the thought process of our editors. --Kevin Murray 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That it has 12 citations does not magically make it invalid. Uncle G 00:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you're smarter than that comment, so I think you're trying to spin away from the issues. The point is not magic, the point is misleading novices through manipulating the examples. --Kevin Murray 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The only "spinning away from the issues" being done here is your introduction of innuendo and personal comments about other editors, when the actual issue, your assertion that it isn't a valid example because it has 12 citations, is addressed directly and contradicted. Not spinning away from the issues, in contrast, would have simply involved offering an explanation of why 12 citations make it an invalid example. Uncle G 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I have clearly explained why an example with 12 citations is not a proper example. I think that you can't refute the point and are getting wikidramatic here. --Kevin Murray 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
            • You've given zero explanation, as can readily be seen from the above. Uncle G 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
              • G, I have tremendous respect for your contributions to WP, and don't want to quibble with you on this minor matter. If I have failed to illustrate my point to you, I'll shall accept my failure and move on. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the separate schools guideline has failed to reach a consensus

Since the attempt to outline separate Schools crtieria has failed, it seems we should address a few of the concerns here. The following is a brief synopsis of the proposed guidelines:

The school is assumed to be notable if it has received significant awards or gained national or regional recognition for its curriculum, extracurricular activities, or history.

--Kevin Murray 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Where was the straw pole that failed? Vegaswikian 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."

--Kevin Murray 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do believe school-related discussion belongs on the schools page, because it can get quite lengthy and has no direct bearing on this page until and unless that discussion gets resolved. >Radiant< 10:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In the interim then we have no guidelines on schools. I propose that we post some basic guidance here while that is resolved. I've posted a condensed version from Schools. I would not object to some reduction, but thought we could start with something that covers the breadth of ideas. --Kevin Murray 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have removed the section on schools. To include such a section runs completely contrary to the failure to reach consensus to merge WP:SCHOOL. A great deal of time and effort is being spent by other editors to work out an agreed guideline for schools, we shouldn't be imposing a solution here using criteria that have not been discussed here and have not achieved resolution elsewhere. Let's fix the current problems with this guideline before tackling the problems of other proposed guidelines. Agent 86 20:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Surpisingly we disagree. However, with opposition I won't push for immediate inclusion here, but encourage people to consider the following as a starting point for discussion of the text:

[edit] Proposed schools section

• Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Schools#New_proposal, the traditional place for discussing school-related guidelines. This is a contentious issue and should not be the cause of divergent discussion in multiple places. >Radiant< 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I won't move the discussion back here without some consensu; however, it seems inappropriate to continue discussion at a rejected location, and the tradition is to discuss the subject matter to be included at the target location. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not a rejected location, merely a failed attempt that can be retried. Also, you're one of the few in favor of merging schools into here. >Radiant< 16:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new proposal

Over at Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises, there has been a suggestion by Kevin and Radiant to merge that suggested policy/guideline into this one. I would modify that suggestion as follows:

1. The resulting article should be "Wikipedia:Organizations and companies."

2. It should be official policy, not just a guideline.

WP:AAOE addresses the issues of edits by employees and members of the company or organization, and dealing with their COI issues. It also addresses the problem of libel. What do you think? Dino 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mind discussion of yet another thing to merge here, but as for making it official policy, I am very much against that. WP:N isn't even a policy. This particular guideline already seems to be applied too strictly by some, without any room for flexibility, without making it a policy. At least in guideline form there is the ability to truly consider an article on its merits without being bound and gagged by more rules. Agent 86 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree! Moving any of the notability criteria to policy is problematic, since we ahve been unable to eliminate subjectivity from the definitions. On a side note though, I think that the definitions of "policy" and "guideline" ar WP:POLICY need some work. --Kevin Murray 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Agent 86, we must be able to "truly consider an article on its merits." I couldn't agree more. Any policy or guideline that is genuinely getting in the way of that fundamental principle needs revision. But in my (admittedly limited) experience, people who don't want to be constrained by rules are generally POV pushers of one sort or another ... either supporters or detractors of the subject of the article. Hope you're not one of those.

In response to Kevin Murray, I strongly feel that the AAOE content relating to libel and COI needs to be policy: preferably now, hopefully soon, and (IMHO) it will inevitably happen as a cure rather than a prevention. If merging it with WP:ORG may prevent it from becoming policy because notability guidelines can't become policy, then we shouldn't merge. Dino 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagreed with the premise of Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises when it was a separate page. I haven't seen anything in the subsequent discussion there or in the merger proposal here that has caused me to change my mind. Organizations are fundamentally different from natural persons. We tolerate the suspension of our normal processes in biographies of living persons because of the risks to the person. While every article should be neutral and well sourced, the normal editing processes and policies are sufficient for articles about organizations. We do not need to make further compromises to our processes. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are sufficient disputed situations that I think it would be inadvisable to make it policy. We need to retain flexibility here. I areee with kevin Murray about subjectivity. We cannot clarify many of these cases exactly, & I think the AfDs prove it. DGG 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial orgs, redux

Following up on the previous conversation about non-commercial orgs, I’d like to see if we can’t get the current topics under the rubric of this guideline sorted out. I’ve reviewed the comments of other editors and revised the proposal accordingly:

=== Non-commercial organizations ===

“Non-commercial organizations” are all those groups whose primary purposes or goals are not profit-oriented. These include, but are not limited to, charitable organizations, non-profit groups, unincorporated associations, social clubs, foundations, and special interest or political groups.

In addition to considering the primary criterion set out above, the following criteria may indicate that a non-commercial organization is notable. The facts supporting notability must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

(1) The organization operates internationally, nationally, or in a significant national subdivision, such as a state or province.

(a) Individual chapters, branches or internal divisions of an organization are usually not notable unless they independently meet notability guidelines.

(b) Organizations that are local in scope (i.e. operate on the municipal, county, or district level) are generally not notable unless they meet other notability criteria.

(2) Consideration may be given to the organization’s longevity, size of membership, whether it is registered as a charitable organization in the jurisdiction in which it operates, notable patronage, historical achievements, and whether the purpose it serves is unusual or unique.

This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. Other factors specific to any given organization may be taken into consideration.

Please contribute, edit, comment, critique, etc.! Agent 86 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Existing text copied here for easier comparison:

=== 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.

Discussion

• 86, I don't see an improvement, just more text which adds no clarity. And, this list of examples is not inclusive enough -- no point to it. The profit motivation of an organization is irrelevant; it seems that having this under Non-commercial is self explanatory. Why restate the primary criterion again here? Your item 2 is nonsense only leading to more subjectivity. Why? This example is overly wordy to no advantage. The exisiting is fine. No one has objected to it. --Kevin Murray 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not for profit status is highly restrictive and many organizations which are non-commercial prefer not to have to walk that line. As a former officer and director of a non profit, it is a pain in the ass. --Kevin Murray 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There has been plenty of discussion that this section needs work. It just gets buried or forgotten in other discussions about matters that are not yet part of this guideline. Why not present some alternative wording that works rather than dismiss the proposal with vague objections? Agent 86 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh really! Vague? Pardon me, let me be more precise: (1) redundant, (2) irrelevant, (3) unnecessary, (4) repetitive, and (5) wordy. --Kevin Murray 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not looking for a string of adjectives. I'm looking for specifics as to how it's any of these things, particularly as it is not too far off the existing version and it incorporates your (and other commentator's) comments from previous discussions. Please feel free to provide revisions, etc. I know I'm treading on a guideline that you seem to have taken ownership of, but constructive commentary will go a long way to getting this guideline up to par so that we can remove the big red question-mark template from its face. Agent 86 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agent 86, I would be reluctant to support your version due to the concern about instruction creep. Let's try to keep the text as simple as reasonably possible. Never use 100 words when ten will do. Dino 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome your suggested revisions to pare it down. Good drafting requires good editing. Agent 86 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is pared down to the essentials it is basically what we have now. --Kevin Murray 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agent 86, take the existing text and add this bullet point:

• The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.

That boils down what you're trying to say into the minimum number of words. I will use the Boy Scouts as my teaching tool to teach everyone what I'm trying to say, since I'm familiar with the Boy Scouts. A national Scouting organization in a large country (such as Germany or the USA) is notable. A national Scouting organization in a small country (such as Luxembourg) is not notable. A local Scouting organization (such as Troop 77, Randomburg, Wyoming) might be notable if it has produced 50 Eagle Scouts in the past five years, or if Dick Cheney is the Scoutmaster.

Notability guidelines on other organizations such as schools should be merged here, and it should be policy. Also, COI and libel considerations found at WP:AAOE should be merged here. I strongly advocate a smaller number of "rules" that all have the same weight. They'd be easier to understand and easier to enforce. Dino 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. My concerns about the existing text is that it's more or less written in the negative, to give a few examples of what is not notable. Kind of like how being Canadian is too often defined by how it's not like being American. In the revision I proposed, I turned it around to say what does indicate notability. Cheers, Agent 86 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated to current Primary Criterion at WP:N

People have complained about the single attribution requirement which was recently added here to match WP:N, but WP:N has since played down the single source. I copied the Primary Criterion from WP:N. However, there is substantial disagreement at WP:N on most issues. --Kevin Murray 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag

Regardless of when the merge took place, absolutely nothing has been done to resolve the issue of the criteria merged from the old ORG proposed guideline. We've wandered into all sorts of other topic areas since the merge, but there has been nothing done to resolve the issues raised here and in the talk page of the old proposed guidelines. Agent 86 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps that is because to most people they aren't actual issues. >Radiant< 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 86, you are the one person still complaining. This does not represent a consensus against the current version. Why don't you state the precise issues which you belive to be no longer covered here? --Kevin Murray 14:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure how many times you want me to repeat myself - I'm starting to get tired of myself at this point. To tell you the truth, I see no consensus either way. As far as I can see, the only ones discussing this issue are you, me and Radiant. I've combed the combined archives of all discussions, and it pretty much comes down to that. I've repeated my concerns over and over, and put forward concrete positive proposals for discussion, simply to be asked again what my concerns are. Here are some links to some of the past discussions relevant to non-commercial orgs:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The current wording does nothing to resolve any of these discussions. The current text is written too poorly and in the negative - it more or less says what is not notable, but not what is notable. The aim of the text I suggested was to put it into the positive, among other things. I am tired of simply being blown off and your having taken ownership of this proposed guideline. Agent 86 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you are getting tired, take a nap. However, I can see that your repetitive discussion could become tiresome to us all. No one has take "ownership", it's just that nobody is backing your position. --Kevin Murray 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If you are getting tired, take a nap. Again, I just happened to wander by, and asked myself, how did that comment help the argument here? Point is, it didn't. Kopf1988 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I noticed that the above almost seemed like an attack, so I apologize for my terse language. I just wanted to point out that comments like that in no way help the argument. 86 was making a point that 86(gender?) believes 86s arguments were being ignored. Kopf1988 05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That's the problem - no one's backing your position, either. Three editors ought not to be setting policy. Your refusal to discuss the outstanding issues is troubling. I have posted a Request for Comment on this proposed guideline in hopes of bringing in some fresh blood. (Given that Wikipedia:Notability itself is disputed, I cannot see how this proposed guideline could be resolved in any event.) 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually that's false, several people are backing Kevin's opinion that there is not a big dispute going on here. It has been well-established that "dispute" tags on guideline pages are not appropriate if there is a lone dissident, or a handful of people who don't like the guideline. Additionally, since this page predates WP:N by more than a year, the dispute there is irrelevant to this particular matter. >Radiant< 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually that's false, several people are backing Kevin's opinion that there is not a big dispute going on here. I just happened to wander by and read this discussion, and I am wondering who is backing his opinion? You can't make such large claims without backing them up. Kopf1988 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding political organizations

How should we treat these? Most of them deal with national/global level issues, but a good deal of them also lack sources. Logical2u_{Review me!} 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• If sources cannot be found, throw them on WP:PROD or WP:AFD. >Radiant< 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)