Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 2

message: This currently reads:
:The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.  Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.
This seems to be widely misread or misunderstood.  Several AfDs quote a company as being listed on a stock market and reference this criterion as being sufficient to establish notability.  Also, overly broad indices (still not necessarily full market indices) may be brought up as justification.  With this is mind, I'd like to reword as so:
:The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate a major, managed stock market index.  .  Note: this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market.  The broader, or the more specialized, the index the less notability it establishes for the company.  An index that simply comprises the whole market does not establish notability.
Thoughts?  Akihabara 06:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed tweak made above.  See diff.  Rossami (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Managed" in this context has a specific meaning.  The DJIA and S&P500 are "managed" in the sense that an editorial board researches and deliberately selects the stocks in the index.  There are explicit selection criteria and the members of the index change with some regularity.  An "unmanaged" index is one whose members do not change (other than through IPO or delisting of the stock) and is composed of essentially all members in that class.  Specifying "managed" indices is part of ruling out the overly broad indices you first mentioned.   The intent of including the word "major" was to limit the list to only the reputable publishers of stock market indices.  We should not expose ourselves to gamesmanship just because someone gets themselves listed in the Bob's Bait Shop & Brokerage Index.Rossami (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the clarification.  Please update the text if you feel it is appropriate.  Akihabara 09:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock market index criterion suggestion

message: I merged the proposals.  I tried to eliminate redundancies between the articles and among the included sections by having one section at the beginning which states the common criteria, then stated the specific conditions for automatic notabiliyt etc. in special sections referenced from the table of contents.  I treied to simplify but strengthen the note regarding advertising in the preface.  Of course I understand that my attempt will be limited by my frame of reference and understanding.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Perfomed

message: Editors of the Wine Project are having a discussion over on the talk page of WP:WINEGUIDE about the notability of wineries that would merit an article. One editor proposes that all wineries are notable, while another editor and myself do think that WP:CORP tempers that though I don't think we can do a cut and dry application at least with the way that WP:CORP is written. We would appreciate any input or additional perspective by editors who are more familiar with dealing with this guideline and business articles to chim in with their views. Thanks Agne 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * In California, where I live,  wineries are more prolific than body shops, though some people think that the use of one product can lead to demand for the other.  To the point, why should wineries receive notablility greater than any other company?  On the other hand, wine is a topic of broad interest and WP can provide a meaningful service by providing verifiable information, without being overly restrictive on the notabillity criteria. --Kevin Murray 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a general "overall" problem of laxity but rather the difficulties in the cookie-cutter approach to all types of businesses and organizations. As a baseline level of notability, it is okay but I think when you have a case of a lot of businesses doing the same thing (like wineries), you need a finer criteria to distinguish the notable ones from the non-notable ones. When you have an area that is very specialized in a niche sort of way, then there needs to a different level of criteria that takes into account the notability of the specialized area as well as the individual business.Agne 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Wineries 

message: While there was consensus to merge the two separate guidelines, I do not think that there was consensus as to the content of the guidelines. There is still a lot of discussion to be had as to the acceptability of the criteria, as was set out in the talk pages of both guidelines before the merge. Agent 86 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 86, I agree; however, it was impossible to merge without modifying the text in some way.  I agree with the tag you added though; thanks. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I tried to reduce redundancy but still keep all of the information and include the spirit of the streamlined text from December (popular), without eliminating the old text, so where there was an overlap, I left the old text.  It seems as though we needed some starting point.  --Kevin Murray 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you be specific about criteria which are too broad?  Did I delete something that should have been included? --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I don't like the "automatic" criteria either.  I think that if notabillity can't be demonstrated by independent sources, then the verifiability can't either.  I think that allowing unsubstantiated information from the organizations' own documents as sources contradicts other WP guidelines. --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Are you now in opposition to the merger?  Your prior comments seemed neutral "six or half dozen" --Kevin Murray 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, I'm trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand your concern,  It seems that while the attention of so many people is focused here due to the merger, this might be a good time to handle some of the lingering issues.  I will read what you've written. --Kevin Murray 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed to ''proposed'' guideline

message: * I moved the text about student newspapers, copied from Organizations, from the bottom of this page to the chronological position within the entries here (June 2006 start) see table of contents. --Kevin Murray 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on merger logisitics

message: It appears that Agent 86, Badlydrawnjeff, and Uncle G strongly oppose removing these criteria.  I don't have a firm feeling for Rossami's position.  I see about five editors (Dhaluza, kevin murray, akihabara, and unitedstatesian. I think Ju66l3r supports, but I have asked for his specific opinion) who have supported removal in this section, above and below.  I think that Uncle G's concern about protecting some specific lists can be achieved in other ways which should be explored, if the problem he presents becomes an issue, and I would support him in that.  Seeing consensus reached I would like to make the change unless some other editors bring opposition.  --Kevin Murray 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming to consensus

message: I ask because it's becoming awfully misleading awfully fast.  The guideline itself acts as a pointer to the individual subject-specific guidelines, and, contrary to the wording here, "nearly all" of them do not, in fact, share the criterion.  The section should probably be reworded to reflect this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it ''really'' primary? 

message: In note 1, one of the examples given relates to cars with Haynes manuals.  Since this is only one published work, and the criterion requires multiple published works, isn't it true that cars with Haynes manuals are only halfway to meeting the criterion?  Can we find a better example than this, or delete this exmple? UnitedStatesian 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree this is a poor example and can be a bit misleading as a service manual is a poor example of the notability of a product.  I see no real value to this third example.  --Kevin Murray 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there then consensus to remove this example from the project page?DGG 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example nit question 

message: Does anyone else think that Note 4 sets a completely arbitrary standard?
*  Examples of such managed stock market indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600, CAC 40, Nikkei 225, FTSE 100 Index, FTSE 250 Index and Bombay's BSE Sensex.  See list of stock market indices for more. Companies that form the bases for major stock market indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion, but this ensures that our coverage of such indices will be complete regardless.  Being in a broader index such as the Russell 3000 is a weak indication of notability and should be supported by other sources, particularly for the smaller members of such indices. Dhaluza 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I hope you understand that I was being sarcastic with the "sacrosanct."  We are on the same team US -- those 2 should go! --Kevin Murray 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I would like to see them go for the opposite reason--I think they are an excuse for lazy deletionists to AfD articles without doing research on notability. I also think that these arbitrary standards are not compatible with the growth of WP, which is most "sacrosanct." Dhaluza 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Wow, three people agree!  Is that sound I hear the far off rumble of consensus building?  Dhaluza, I changed the title of this comment section to try to attract more contributors to the discussion and see if we can move forward. UnitedStatesian 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think you are confusing the suitability of list articles, and the notability of the subject items on the list. Even if a list of the Russel 3000 companies would be considered inappropriate, all 3000 companies could still be notable enough to be included in an article (either alone or in a sub-group). Your comment provides some background on how the criteria came to be, but there should be no linkage between List articles and the articles they link to. Each article subject must stand on its own. Dhaluza 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * I see the problem in three ways: (1) redundancy which creates confusion (2) implying that smaller companies are not notable, (3) setting the precedent for more special cases instruction creep (see CREEP).  I have definately seen this section cited to reverse purpose at AfD to argue for the deletion of smaller firms, albeit incorrectly, but for the drive-by voters it can seem compelling.  --Kevin Murray 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *1) what redunancy? 2) How so?  3) Really?  So what if that's really the case?  If it's being used improperly, then i hope the closing admins are bright enough to take that into consideration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * BDJ, I think you can see the point, but apparently disagree.  It is pointless to belabor the discussion with mounds of rehash here.  Please read through the discussions above and at CREEP, it is all well explained.  But I will consider you as opposed to the removal when evaluating consensus.  Thanks.  --Kevin Murray 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I honestly do not see how WP:CREEP applies here, but I also strongly disagree in a redundancy and fail to see any implications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * As someone who respects your opinion and discussion elsewhere, I'm sad that I can not convince you about this, but we each must follow our instincts and experiences.  In the section above we are trying to form a consensus and I have made a note of your opposition at Coming to consensus (above) and directed readers to look below for your comments. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Here is one happening right now based on instrcution creep at BIO.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Paul Humphries.  A fairly active user has made the gaff of nominationg for AfD based misunderstanding the special criteria in that AFU mess --Kevin Murray 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception standards - seeking consensus 

message: *The formulation avoids the issue--verifiable information from RS about what precisely? the local notability? Or the nationally visible Notability of the local events?DGG 05:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment on "local in scope"

message: I have removed the specific reference to religious and educational institutions as examples of organizations given in the introductory paragraph. There has been no consideration given to whether this guideline is meant to or ought to supercede WP:SCHOOL or WP:CONG (see my earlier comment on these, above). There was never a discussion of merging those guidelines into this one. Those proposed guidelines have their own long history and controversies by themselves.
I have also removed the reference to specific articles given as examples. We ought to leave the description as generic as possible without having to resort to WP:INN type references. Agent 86 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the changes were an improvement, and that WP:SCHOOL and WP:CONG are exceptions, but added back the overall religious and educational coverage, as this is distinct from the localized exceptions. Dhaluza 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised introductory paragraph

message: 86, I support your edit.  Another editor put in the examples and I was reluctant to remove.  I agree that these added to clutter, but maybe we could put them in a footnote?  I was unaware pending guidelines at WP:SCHOOL or WP:CONG.  If compatible, I'd like to see them incorporated here, but that is another discussion.  Thanks. --Kevin Murray 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes, we think alike. That should scare the hell out of you!  I've placed the notices.  Actually I think that neither brings anything new other than a bunch of special cases, which fall apart under some scrutiny. --Kevin Murray 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * WP:PORN is an example of guideline creep at its worst.  Prior poor decisions are not good precedents for continuing a bad trend. --Kevin Murray 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuzzy math yourself. Maybe your haste to merge 2 other guidelines into this one has left the evaluation of comments harder than it might have been if the mergers had been considered separately. With 2 mergers, I am entitled to express my views on each separately. I did not "vote," much less "vote twice." But to see if there is consensus for merging WP:CONG here, I see on this page opposing arguments from 99of9 and from me. On the talk page of WP:CONG, I see opposing arguments from JROBBO, Yechielman, and GRBerry, for a total of five expressing opposition. On this page I see support for merging WP:CHURCH by you, Agent 86, Rossami (only if the issued raised at WP:CHURCH are included here), and by Radiant, with no support at WP:CHURCH for the merger. That is a total of three or four in favor of merging WP:CHURCH, depending on the incorporation of the church specific guidelines. That is clearly a failure to show consensus for a merge. It is not really necessary to show a consensus against merge, because failure favors the status quo.  I feel the failure to show consensus for merger in a week requires me to once again remove the merger template which you restored with respect to merging WP:CONG into this guideline. Edison 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do we have to rehash this time and time again? We've already been over this - there is more to the church and congregation than just an "organisation" - this policy makes sense and will defeat the claims of "all churches are not notable" that have floated around Wikipedia while WP:ORG was the primary notability criterion for churches. Please read what has already been said on this and stop asking for a merge. This policy was proposed for a reason, and it should stay. JROBBO 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this proposal is fine, detailed and to the point.  There aren't a lot of churches on AFD, but when there are, it's good to have a resource like this. YechielMan 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of [[WP:CONG]] and [[WP:SCHOOL]] here

message: --Kevin Murray 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we have to rehash this time and time again? We've already been over this - there is more to the church and congregation than just an "organisation" - this policy makes sense and will defeat the claims of "all churches are not notable" that have floated around Wikipedia while WP:ORG was the primary notability criterion for churches. Please read what has already been said on this and stop asking for a merge. This policy was proposed for a reason, and it should stay. JROBBO 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this proposal is fine, detailed and to the point.  There aren't a lot of churches on AFD, but when there are, it's good to have a resource like this. YechielMan 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating for consensus 2-22-07

message: --Kevin Murray 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Schools discussion page

message: :Why do we have to rehash this time and time again? We've already been over this - there is more to the church and congregation than just an "organisation" - this policy makes sense and will defeat the claims of "all churches are not notable" that have floated around Wikipedia while WP:ORG was the primary notability criterion for churches. Please read what has already been said on this and stop asking for a merge. This policy was proposed for a reason, and it should stay. JROBBO 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this proposal is fine, detailed and to the point.  There aren't a lot of churches on AFD, but when there are, it's good to have a resource like this. YechielMan 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Congregations discussion page

message: An issue has been raised under an AfD about when a political party is so marginal as to be non-notable.  I don't believe there is a policy anywhere, is there?  If not, we should think about initiating one. --Selket Talk 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful about WP:CREEP. I would say that if a political party can get on the ballot in more than one localized area, it would be notable under the general criteria, and does not need a separate one. Use the same standard as for a garage band. Dhaluza 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, I think, presents a somewhat U.S.-centric view.  There are many parts of the world where there are many localized political parties.  When does a local party reach notability? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selket (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Like everthing else it reaches notability when there is sufficient independent information published about it, which can be added to the article's bibliography.  This includes many web sources as well.  If you don't ahve sources for the information, then you can't include it at WP.  I suggest that you read WP:VERIFY, which should answer most of your questions.  I would be happy to confer with you on a case by case basis. --Kevin Murray 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political parties