Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability (organizations and companies): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:32, 29 June 2014 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,154 edits →Explanation requested for phrase " A story reprinted in multiple newspapers is still one source (one publication)"← Previous edit Revision as of 06:35, 2 July 2014 edit undoCullen328 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,232 edits →"Schools" section and proposed notability guideline for geographic features: expand answerNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:
*I thought we had a well established rule of thumb, that secondary schools (and above) are generally notable. This has arisen partly because of pupils wanting to write about their own school. This has produced a crowd effect that it was impossible. Conversely Primary and Middle Schools are generally NN, but articles on them may properly be merged into an article on education in their district or on the place where they are. ] (]) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) *I thought we had a well established rule of thumb, that secondary schools (and above) are generally notable. This has arisen partly because of pupils wanting to write about their own school. This has produced a crowd effect that it was impossible. Conversely Primary and Middle Schools are generally NN, but articles on them may properly be merged into an article on education in their district or on the place where they are. ] (]) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
*This seems a strange argument. Schools, corporations, colleges, public bodies, other institutions, and individual people, may all be associated with buildings, but equally they may occupy a number of different buildings, either at once or in sequence. A school is not a place any more than a person in their house is a place. Notability of building and occupier is separate. --] (]) 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC) *This seems a strange argument. Schools, corporations, colleges, public bodies, other institutions, and individual people, may all be associated with buildings, but equally they may occupy a number of different buildings, either at once or in sequence. A school is not a place any more than a person in their house is a place. Notability of building and occupier is separate. --] (]) 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
*If, through significant coverage in reliable sources, we can establish that a school building as a physical structure is notable as an architectural or historical topic , then we ought to have a article about it. Leaving aside such relatively rare issues, our well-established presumption is that primary and middle schools are not notable, but that degree awarding secondary schools and colleges and universities are notable. We redirect search terms about non notable schools to articles about their school districts or locales. ] ] 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
** This - a school as defined here is an entity but not a building as would be at the geographic features guideline. --] (]) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ** This - a school as defined here is an entity but not a building as would be at the geographic features guideline. --] (]) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Revision as of 06:35, 2 July 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (organizations and companies) page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
WikiProject iconCompanies
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
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.

See also:


Academic organization discussion

A discussion of notability of academic organizations has been going on at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Academic_Organization_notability_guideline. Sorry for the late notice. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has been revived (see Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (academics)#Restarting discussion (April)). RockMagnetist (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Political parties

I'm involved in an AfD where someone has said "I favor the lowest possible barriers to inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. We should treat these much the way we treat high schools because this is the sort of material which SHOULD be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia." I can't get my head around this. Does it make sense? Obviously ideology is irrelevant to notability, but the rest? Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A few years ago, such deletion discussions would result in merges to the relevant election. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly think in this case the state parties should, unless they pass GNG, simply be mentioned in the parent article, and that youth groups should be treated as any other youth group, which reminds me I forgot to take one to AfD. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That one certainly looks like list fodder in its current state, though I imagine that since it fought multiple elections, it really deserves expansion with individual primary and election results. Kind of a {{R with possibilities}}. Just one opinion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (political parties) exists, FYI. I'd suggest reviving that discussion; at the very nice it would be nice to end up with an essay. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethiojobs

Abel Asrat (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)I am Abel a Wikipedian In Residence in Ethiopia and recently I wrote an Article about Ethiojobs but my article is facing speedy deletion.I chose to write the article since the company was the number one online recruiting company with 500 companies network and 250,000 Cv database https://en.wikipedia.org/Ethiojobs

First, you need to stop thinking of it in personal terms, as being "my article".... as soon as you hit "Save Page" it becomes "Misplaced Pages's article".
Having said that... there are multiple issues that would lead me to support deletion:
(1) The article does not really establish what makes the company notable... It may well be the greatest company in the world... but we can't say that unless a reliable independent source (someone outside of the company) says it. Are their any industry sources that have written about the company? Has it been discussed by the media?
(2) the article reads like an advertizement for the company (examples: "... providing a satisfying e-recruitment service..." and "Driven by a team of qualified staff members..." are the kind of sentences that are usually written by a company's marketing department). Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Schools" section and proposed notability guideline for geographic features

The "Schools" section (which appears to apply to all educational institutions) excludes all other subject-specific notability guidelines. This may contradict the proposed guideline Misplaced Pages:Notability (geographic features), as educational institutions may be notable for their buildings or as legally-recognised populated places. Peter James (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought we had a well established rule of thumb, that secondary schools (and above) are generally notable. This has arisen partly because of pupils wanting to write about their own school. This has produced a crowd effect that it was impossible. Conversely Primary and Middle Schools are generally NN, but articles on them may properly be merged into an article on education in their district or on the place where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems a strange argument. Schools, corporations, colleges, public bodies, other institutions, and individual people, may all be associated with buildings, but equally they may occupy a number of different buildings, either at once or in sequence. A school is not a place any more than a person in their house is a place. Notability of building and occupier is separate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If, through significant coverage in reliable sources, we can establish that a school building as a physical structure is notable as an architectural or historical topic , then we ought to have a article about it. Leaving aside such relatively rare issues, our well-established presumption is that primary and middle schools are not notable, but that degree awarding secondary schools and colleges and universities are notable. We redirect search terms about non notable schools to articles about their school districts or locales. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This - a school as defined here is an entity but not a building as would be at the geographic features guideline. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:LISTED and Hoover's

This came up at a recent AfD, so I thought I'd mention it here. I notice that a Hoover's profile is listed as a criteria for notability under the WP:LISTED section of this notability guideline. I think that this should be removed. The reason is that, as the Misplaced Pages article on Hoover's points out, the company maintains a database of 80 million companies. (A google search indicates a number varying from 75 to 85 million.) Even if the number were a tenth or a hundredth of that size, this would still be a pretty useless criteria for notability. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the criteria are for being listed in Hoover's? I can't find it on their web site. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that all you have to do is incorporate. I know a guy who incorporated a family nonprofit and he got a call from Hoover's! Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should be removed then. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed it, but if anyone feels it needs to be discussed further, then back it goes I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Submitting an article

Hi,

We would like to write an article on PronounceNames.com

It has been featured in Wall Street Journal, CBS News, Revision 3 Tekzilla (100th episode), etc.

It gets over million visits.

Does this meet the criteria for having extensive independent coverage?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maherlewis (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The information you need is probably at WP:BFAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Could a knowledgable senior Wikipedian

Please create, or submit for creation, a "WP:" template to make linking/referring to this subsection, , easier? It is important in patent acceptability/verifiability discussions. Ping me when done? THANK YOU. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, Leprof 7272. Anyone can do this. Open (edit) this link and view this diff to see the two steps involved in creating shortcuts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Beautious, tyvm! Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Explanation requested for phrase " A story reprinted in multiple newspapers is still one source (one publication)"

I am hoping someone can enlighten me. In the footnotes of the main page of this article is the sentence, "A story reprinted in multiple newspapers is still one source (one publication)". This makes it sound like a story about a trip to the moon published in 200 newspapers worldwide is just one "source". Could someone explain what is meant by "multiple newspapers" here? I suspect that what is meant is either that a single story published in the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and the Orlando Sentinel (all owned by the Tribune Company) count as only one source (provided they are all the same article with the same author) or that the same story-line covered multiple times in a single newspaper is to count as only one source (which seems like a vague and counterproductive value, given that a major newspaper may cover the same subject multiple times thereby reiterating its notability). How is "multiple newspapers" to be considered "one source" with "one publication"? is my real question. I am sure there is an answer to this, but I am having some difficulty understanding it the way it is currently worded and want to know when to apply it to my own evaluation of sources for determining notability. And if/ when I get an answer, it would be great if that sentence could be rephrased for clarity (and I will be glad to do that myself if no one beats me to it!) Thanks! KDS4444 02:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Frequently, news stories come from wire services like the Associated Press, and they will be published in multiple papers, perhaps with a few small changes and edits, but otherwise effectively the same stories. Though these would be different sources, this is the "one source" for our purposes. Most trusted papers will have this byline in their lead to be clear that the article is not their original content and hint that you may find duplicates of this story in other newspapers. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Also to add, particularly when talking companies, press releases about companies will be republished in multiple papers; this is the same situation, there's only "one source" irregardless how many times it is republished. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Now I understand. Thank you! KDS4444 02:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Aside, though: aren't press releases generally considered not independent?? KDS4444 02:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, pressers are dependent sources, even if published by the third-party newspaper. I think the key walk-away is that just because a newspaper publishes something doesn't make the newspaper the publisher of the information when it comes to considering notability. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Regular newspapers don't simply reprint press releases. If you find an alleged newspaper that is simply reprinting press releases verbatim, then you should ask yourself whether they're actually reliable, e.g., exercising editorial control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
True, though there are other sources like magazines (or more their online version) and online news outlets that do this, but the same logic applies, the republication of the presser in multiple online sources doesn't make that multiple publications. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Categories: