Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Notability of financial transactions

In WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage, it says the following (edited to highlight the salient content):

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:

of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,

I've seen many deletions discussions, (*disclosure*) including for articles I started, where it was argued that funding coverage is trivial, saying that the coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH. But it's actually more nuanced than that. We have an article unicorn (finance), specifically to show that it's considered notable when a funded entity is valued at $1B or higher. There are also "decacorns" and "hectacorns", describing even higher funded valuations. To eliminate this potential inconsistency in the notability guidelines, and to preserve information that might otherwise be attacked and removed, I think we need to modify the guideline to distinguish a unicorn funding round from a relatively trivial smaller/earlier (~$5-10M) round. It could be a simple change:

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:

of a minor capital transaction, such as early stage raised capital,

It's a simple change, and unicorns aren't specifically mentioned, but are instead implied. This gives editors of business articles some leeway to include larger/late stage deals, which are a much greater indication of notability. A parallel supporting argument is that the larger funding rounds are led by investors who spent a lot of time studying the business model and financials of the funded companies, parameters that point to notability.

I'd like to hear some thoughts and see what kind of participation this gets before deciding if this warrants the broader participation of an RFC. Cheers! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not super up on this, but isn't a valuation different then actual funding? It seems like your trying to equate them in your question and just because a company is valued at a certain amount it doesn't mean they ever get that amount of cash. Like sometimes an IPO will be valued at a certain amount and then the company doesn't raise anywhere near it in actual capital. Also, the terms "minor" and "early stage" are extremely vague and have no connection to real world notability. Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The funding round is made in exchange for a percentage of the company. That percentage is then prorated to 100% to come up with the implied valuation from the funding round. As subsequent rounds occur (Series A, Series B, Series C, etc), depending on how much of a percentage is allocated, the company's implied valuation can go up or down. It's dynamic, and is a function of the business environment and the company's prospects at the time of funding. If you think the terms are vague, we can be more explicit - I'm just trying to do this with a minimum of drama and disruption to build consensus. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hhhmmm that's kind of what I figured. Theoretically you could create some form of notability standard based on what funding round they are in. The problem with that though is that the notability of something has to be permanent once it's established and like you say funding is a pretty dynamic process. So I don't see how it could work. Valuation doesn't really work either because it's just based on some random person's opinion. Especially for "unicorn" companies. Which are usually solvent and have almost zero real world assets, products, or really anything besides magical tech bro ferry dust hype (no insult to tech bros) to back up there evaluation with.

Anyway, I can understand wanting to do this with the minimum of drama and disruption, but you can't have wording in the guidelines changed without a formal RfC and a formal RfC would likely come with drama and disruption. In the meantime, anything said here without an RfC doesn't hold any real weight, outside of just being brainstorming. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This garnered less interest than I’d hoped. Thanks for your comments, but unicorn valuation isn’t derived from a random person’s opinion, and companies valued as such usually have significant assets. The valuation comes directly from the shares sold projected to 100% - straight math, no opinion. Companies have something called a capitalization table to help track ownership. And there are numerous examples of unicorns with tangible value disrupting established industries before being profitable. To address the lack of specificity you mention above, perhaps the simple solution is to add a caveat: “Funding rounds that create Unicorn valuations are one exception to the notability guidelines.” That can be the basis of an RFC. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That can happen. Especially if you expect all the comment to come on the same day/week/month/year of you posting it. Most of the time who values companies and what makes them an expert? Because the last time I checked it's usually Silicon Valley "media influences," people like Tim Ferris (who doesn't claim to be a an expert angel investor) and tech startup funding companies like Y Combinator. There will never be de-facto, inherent, notability for unicorn companies based on their opinions. Or really that of anyone else. Even if it's Warren Buffet (who doesn't invest in "unicorn" companies BTW) That's not how notability works.

Also, 99% (really 100%) of the value of a Unicorn company comes from metaphysical things like projections of future profits. Not solid assets that can be sold for a certain amount in the case of bankruptcy like a normal company is valued based on. Ultimately it comes down an analysis of "market sizing" and "Estimation of finances." So there is no objective, and therefore non-opinion based, way to value a start up (or Unicorn) company. Creating a de-facto inherent notability based on projections of future markets or profits is not going to happen anymore then it will due to what influencer says which companies are "Unicorns." BTW, the reason I put "Unicorn" in quotes is because it's not even an actually economic idea. Nor is it grounded in any kind of solid financial metrics or academic science. It's just a buzzword used to increase hype/capital among angel investors. There's nothing that makes a $100 billion and above valued company inherently more notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article then say $99 billion (or under) company though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Virtually no "normal compan[ies] are valued based on the sale value of their assets - almost all companies are valued, to one degree or another, on an assessment of the current value of their future cash flows. There certainly is a objective way to value a start-up company (or any company): what someone is willing to pay for it, or a portion of it. If someone is willing to invest $100 million in a company for a 50% stake, that means that they think that the company (prior to the investment) is worth $200 million. This is true whether that company is a start-up, or a hundred year old business. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that a start up company that has guarantee to be sold to one of the Apples of the world for massive amounts of cash is likely notable "in the world of startups." The Apples of the world have bought many small, niche companies over the years that have barely registered in the news though. Let alone the public eye. It would be an objective evaluation for me to say one of those companies is notable, simply because Apple bought them, divorced from also considering available references Etc. Etc. Which if I understand correctly is what Timtempleton was requesting be put in the guidelines. Ultimately if the references exist for notability then other criteria shouldn't matter. If they don't though, then that's more important then someone being willing to throw a ton of money on what's probably a fad, fly by night, company.

Plus, they weren't talking about "startups" but "unicorns" anyway and they linked to Unicorn_(finance). Which gives a couple of ways to value a unicorn. Neither of them are how much money someone is willing to invest in the company or if it's being sold. How it does say unicorn companies are valued certainly is subjective. More importantly, any kind of "X is notable because Y spent/invested money in X" is notability through inheritance anyway. This probably wouldn't get off the ground on that alone, whatever the other details are. Of course that's just my reading of things. There could be some wiggle room there, maybe, but I don't think so. I've actually known a few Silicon Valley tech bro angel investor types in my lifetime and I wouldn't create articles for any of the startup companies (I never asked if they were "unicorns") they invested in. None of them ever went anywhere. That's just me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You many not be aware that there's an article listing former unicorns. In this subsection, List of unicorn startup companies#Former unicorns it shows the fate of former unicorns. Only slightly more than a quarter of former unicorns were acquired (whether by Apple or not I haven't checked), but most are still doing just fine post-IPO. I started the RfC below to get more feedback, and hope you can participate. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is that these are frequently the source of corporate spam, cited to lightly-churned press releases that attempt to make the not-noteworthy look noteworthy. We are not the marketers' stenographers - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC about coverage of unicorn funding rounds

WP:Notability (organizations and companies) states that all funding rounds are examples of trivial coverage. Should that blanket statement be modified to make an exception for so-called "Unicorn" funding rounds, whereby a private company is valued at >$1B? Some discussion precedes this section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• You might want to clarify. Are you talking about whether such coverage counts towards the wp:notability of the company? If so then the heading is a bit wrong. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: It's a bit tricky, and you've got a good point. But I'm trying to get agreement that there's a difference between a unicorn funding round that values a company at >$1B, whatever the underlying circumstances, versus for example a simple series A or B for $5-10M, and a sub-$1B valuation. This can certainly play out to add to a company's notability, as well as that of the investor, but of course it's not the only thing we'd need to pass WP:NCORP. Hence its inclusion here. I noticed that there are articles about this type of funding: unicorn (finance) and List of unicorn startup companies. It seems inconsistent to have articles about something that the guidelines say isn't notable. I'm just trying to bring this to the community's attention to get some kind of consensus. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - (brought here by Yapperbot, and I read the above discussion) for the notability of the company, No. I don't think funding QUANTITY should play any role in notability; some Saudi prince (IIRC) with control of a sovereign wealth fund got special funds created just for him at a Japanese bank run primarily by one individual and this fund was the primary investor in WeWork and others, but those two people's funding decisions with one person's money shouldn't be seen to make a company notable; rather it should be coverage in Reliable Sources. Funding rounds (when big enough and from big name VC firms) are bragged about, but those don't guarantee a successful company that will be remembered, or seen as notable from other perspectives. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Avatar317: Thanks for participating. It seems to me that all funding isn't equal, which is why we have dedicated articles about unicorn (finance), including List of unicorn startup companies. I'm trying to establish if there's consensus for at what point a funding round is notable, and the fact that a unicorn is a thing on Wikipedia suggests that as a good cutoff. If there's agreement, we can work on how the notability guidelines could be modified. I put the cart before the horse above as a starting point, before I realized I needed more eyeballs. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Being a unicorn is not significant coverage for purposes of notability under NCORP. It could merit inclusion for a company that is already notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: Thanks for your comment. I think what you're saying is that the current Wikipedia practice of highlighting every instance of a unicorn, in an article and on a list, could continue. And to reiterate, I'm not using this RfC to make a sweeping determination of exactly how much notability value being a unicorn brings, only a community consensus that it's not trivial, which is different than what the guideline currently says. I want to change the wording to clarify this one exception. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

    Can we mention that Alphabet (then Google) was a unicorn? Sure. Could there be a list of unicorns? Maybe, depends on what sourcing is available that discuss them as a group. Is a company being a unicorn enough to justify a stand alone article or be part of what justifies a stand alone article? Absolutely not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• No Based on what I've already said in the discussion about it and also what Barkeep49 has said above this. While I think it might being a Unicorn or past unicorn might be worth mentioning in articles, I don't think that means unicorn companies should have de facto notability status based on it. Also, I don't see anyone trying to remove mentions of unicorns from articles either. There's a difference between the standards for what can be included in an article and what makes a company notable. I'm fine with that difference existing. Maybe something could be inserted in the guidelines about how unicorn companies are likely to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, but that's still a little to subjective and not provable. I don't know how it could be worded not be subjective or provable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I apologize if I was unclear. All I'm asking is if unicorn finding is trivial coverage or not, "trivial" being the exact word used to describe ALL funding announcements in the organization notability guideline. Some of you are answering questions I didn't ask about company notability. That's not the question. In my mind it's clear - to answer whether unicorn funding is trivial or not, all I have to do is point to the fact that we have multiple articles about unicorn funding. It's clearly not trivial. Anyone want to revise their answers before this is locked? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused but isn't the opposite of unicorn companies currently being trivial that they become notable? Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No… because there is a third category. Unicorn funding might be “worth noting” in an article on the company, and yet not rise to the level of deeming the company itself “notable”. To give an example outside of orgs, the fact that George Washington wore dentures is “worth noting” in his bio article, but (on its own) this factoid is not what makes us deem him Notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The question is simply whether you think a unicorn funding round that values a company at greater than $1 billion is a trivial thing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that your actual wording of the RFC is fine & clear, but per my note at the top I think that the title of the section has an error. IMO it should be something like "RfC about coverage of unicorn funding rounds" or "RfC about applicability of coverage of unicorn funding rounds" North8000 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarified title of RfC to eliminate confusion. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Trivial as it applies to Notability srandards - obviously, as we can't really verify it. If there was a requirement for published (on the web!) formal CPA/CA auditing statements - maybe, but there aren't going to be (m)any of these. Valuations don't matter - actual cash invested or actual products being sold do. Otherwise we become a WP:Crystal ball, with possible implications of "pump and dump" or even of "stock touting". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m a little confused by your comment. Valuation comes directly from actual cash invested, which is reported in the media. If you’re saying the actual cash is notable but the resultant valuation isn’t, isn’t that inconsistent. Based on your understanding of this term, are you saying that we should delete the articles I pointed out about unicorn funding? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's stick to the question of notability of companies - otherwise you posted this on the wrong page. The so-called "valuations" posted in some media are extremely unreliable -pure guesses really, driven by the most optimistic funders. Let's talk real numbers, not these made up PR numbers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I’d rather not. Putting up and rebutting a different argument is called a strawman. I want to resolve the wording on this page that calls ALL funding trivial. This is the best way I know of doing it. Please humor me. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You are telling others to go along with your incorrect assumption: that any of this is real rather than insubstantial numbers generated only for marketing. How much was WeWork "valued at", and how much was the market actually willing to pay for it? - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

WeWork's high funding and subsequent crash is exactly why they were notable. It would be hard to go to their article and argue that the funding info should be excised as trivial and fluff. That's a large part of their notability, and removing the info would do readers a disservice. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we can't know the future, so one is no more able to claim that all funding is trivial than the opposite, that all funding is significant. I'm saying there's a middle ground. Unicorn level funding seems to neatly meet that criteria. That's why there's an article about it, and why there's a list of unicorns. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would oppose any blanket statement that a certain type of coverage is necessarily trivial. Benjamin (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• No. This is almost entirely seen on Wikipedia in the form of corporate spam. It does not grant notability. And per Smallbones, these numbers are largely synthetic and imaginary, and are promoted precisely for marketing purposes. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Related RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_reliability_of_Crunchbase_News_versus_Crunchbase's_user_generated_information - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not applicable - the guide already counts that Any coverage of it being a ‘unicorn’ is not “standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage”. The standard notice of the raising that the company posts does not add to the notability. But coverage beyond that about capital raising does count, regardless of whether it is about the capital raising being ‘unicorn’ or something else about the capital raising. Saying ‘unicorn’ is not boilerplate, so it counts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Markbassett: It sounds like you are agreeing with me that unicorn funding isn’t trivial. Yet WP:Notability (organizations and companies) states that trivial funding includes announcements “of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.” We need to carve out an exception. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Or - per the discussion so far - we don't need to - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Timtempleton I am saying that only standard or routine was excluded, and any reporter remarks — such as about it being a unicorn — is coverage. The guide section is excluding the “standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage” such as “of a capital transaction, such as raised capital“. That would be when company lawyers pay the Wall Street Journal to print a standardised bit in the notifications section of their paper as the legally required notification. But if a reporter chooses to remark “unicorn” and their editor decides it news worth printing, that obviously should count as coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The unicorn funding on its own does not make a company notable… in-depth coverage of the company that mentions its unicorn funding does. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: Thanks. I agree but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m trying to get consensus that unicorn funding announcements aren’t trivial, not that they alone establish notability. There has never been a single article that I’ve seen (let alone defended) that just has a unicorn funding source as it’s entire claim to fame. But I have seen numerous articles attacked for including unicorn funding as routine, “churnalism”, puffery, yada yada. I’m seeing agreement here, for the most part, despite different arguments being rebutted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my confusion, but since you stared this thread off by pointing us to WP:ORG (a NOTABILITY guideline), I assumed this was about notability. If you question isn’t about notability, then what WP:ORG says is irrelevant… as that guideline is specifically about notability.

I think the policy that applies most to what you are now talking about might be WP:DUE. And I would suggest that the question you should be asking is: should we mention unicorn funding in an article, or is unicorn funding so trivial that it would be UNDUE to do so?

My answer to THAT question is: it depends. Again, it all comes down to sourcing. Are there sources that discuss the unicorn funding of the company on reasonable depth? If so, which sources (are we talking high quality business journalism like the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times… or are we talking low quality sources known for just regurgitating promotional material).

If the unicorn funding is covered by high quality business media, then we can probably say it isn’t trivial, and that it would be DUE to mention it in our article. If not, then we can probably say that it is trivial, and that it would be UNDUE to mention it.

In other words, this is something that needs to be judged on a case by case basis, and not something we can write a blanket “one-size-fits-all” rule about.

Finally, I think you are off base when you focus on the amount of the valuation. That does not matter nearly as much as the coverage does. A small unicorn funding that lots of high quality sources talk about can be deemed highly relevant and non-trivial, while a large unicorn funding for that no high quality sources talk about can be deemed irrelevant and trivial. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Good points. Apologies if I worded my RfC wrong, but I read and reread it and it says what I wanted it to say. Every unicorn round I've read about is because of the associated media coverage, simply due to the scale of the ensuing valuation. The financial press loves these stories. Therefore, we can conclude that all funding is not trivial coverage. Here's a blanket one size fits all - unicorn funding reported in independent reliable sources is not trivial. This recent article retriggered my interest in this topic. [[1]] It may be paywalled but you can get the gist just from the title. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I am going to have to Oppose your Proposal then... as thr WP:ORG page is about notability, and for the purposes of notability valuation amounts are trivia. Thus the text of the guideline should remain unchanged. As for whether valuation is trivial in some other context (such as DUE weight) - my opinion remains the same: it depends on the sourcing. You are free to disagree, but your arguments do not sway me from my opinion. All the best... I'm done. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No ping this time since you requested to be done, but if you read this, I think your argument can be summarized as saying that while significant coverage of small unicorn funding can be highly relevant and non-trivial, all unicorn funding coverage is always trivial. My position is I agree that a single announcement of unicorn funding isn't enough to pass notability, but like I said, I've never seen a unicorn funding announcement that didn't come with lots of other coverage. The whole point of this is to keep ALL funding from being discounted in deletion discussions. So perhaps this works better as a deletion discussion to ignore - calling unicorn funding trivial. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope… not what I said. But I won’t repeat myself. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha - no offense meant. You couldn't understand my point, and I wouldn't change a word, and I couldn't understand yours, and you don't want to change a word, so we're even! ;-) As it coincidentally turns out, a nice test case just popped up. It's a $2B unicorn with significant coverage in Fast Company, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC and several Crain's business journals. And it was nominated for deletion and even got another delete vote before I improved it and voted keep. I think part of this is suspicion of WP:COI, but we can see how this plays out in real life. I'm curious if the funding will be attacked, thus proving my point of starting this RfC. The company is Unqork. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton with respect, your participation has made up a substantial percentage of this RfC discussion. We're probably close to wrapping it up but as a fellow participant could I ask you to consider stepping back for the remainder? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sure - I can do that - I’ll just monitor and respond if pinged. I also see you close AfDs and participated in the NCORP discussion above. That’s very relevant here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"memoirs or interviews by executives,"

Shouldn't it read "memoirs by or interviews with executives"? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 13:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes makes most sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Interviews with company representatives

Pinging HighKing, though he has stepped away following a related discussion at DRV. In more than one AFD, HighKing has opined that:

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.

The last line there is significant, because its a misinterpretation of this guideline. A similar argument about interviews and WP:ORGIND was made here and again here and was copy-pasted in about a dozen AFD discussions (with minor changes). Alarmingly, this same misreading of this guideline has been used to reject AFC submissions aplenty, including this, this, and this (which I feel should be reviewed and reversed in almost every case I've found thus far). Rejection of drafts at AFC should not be used as an work-around for a lack of consensus for your opinion at AFD. But I digress...

Nowhere in the sub-section of this guideline to which WP:ORGIND refers is there a reference to interviews. In fact, interviews aren't mentioned until a later sub-section about secondary and primary sources, and even then it is in a list of "frequently encountered" sources. But the context there is obvious; companies regularly publish interviews with their own staff (and executives) by way of promotion. Those should be rejected. But equally common are interviews with company representatives in magazines, newspapers and on television. These are interviews conducted by independent journalists who ask questions, elicit answers, make editorial decisions about the content they have gained, and publish an article, some of which is in the form of quotes (of course). Now, it might be true that some of the facts contained therein come "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, in that the CEO of a company is making a statement about his own company and part of that could be considered a primary source that might need additional verification. But there are many instances where that is not the case and the questions asked are being asked because an independent journalist thinks that's what their readers will find note-worthy. Not all interviews involve a company interviewing its own, in fact journalists interviewing people about notable subjects and then publishing the results is exactly what is required for something to be considered notable here.

In that context, the rejection of Draft:Unfold (company) (above) is particularly jarring. Editorial articles in reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject have been included in the article, but it was rejected on the basis that the directors were quoted and, "References in the article all appear to rely entirely on announcements and/or interviews", which is absolute nonsense (https://medium.com/authority-magazine/meet-the-disruptors-how-alfonso-cobo-andy-mccune-of-unfold-are-shaking-up-how-people-tell-fffc22e13812, [2], [3], [4], [5]).

I've brought this here rather than to WP:ANI because I believe it can be resolved (and while misguided, I don't think the editors responsible are being deliberately disruptive). But examples like the one above make it really hard to continue to assume good faith. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this largely depends on taking a reasonable, common-sense view of what an interview is. The Medium article in that Unfold draft? Actual interview, doesn't add much, and if that were the best they had I'd see the reviewer's point. But I'm seeing at least two mainstream media (major newspaper/television network) profiles of the company that have been dismissed because the journalist talked to, and quoted, someone from the company in the profile, which is absurd. That's not an interview (in this context), that's just ordinary journalism. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course, and to be clear, those weren't in any particular order (just the order in which I opened them), nor are they the only ones in the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Response I don't know why you appear to have a problem with me personally but its wearing thin. Dealing solely with your comments above where you say that references which meet the criteria for establishing notability are being incorrectly rejected, I cannot determine if its simply your opinion or whether you genuinely can point to parts of NCORP which are being ignored or misinterpreted.

You point to a paragraph where I quote from NCORP and say that "alarmingly" the last sentence is a misinterpretation. You then go on to look through NCORP for mentions of interviews to somehow justify your later stated position that interviews are normal and acceptable. This is a point where it appears we majorly disagree and where I cannot see that opinion is supported by NCORP guidelines.

Your description of where interviews are mentioned in NCORP disingenuous, as you've omitted mention of a key part of that description which says:

• A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:

• corporate annual or financial reports, proxy statements,
• memoirs or interviews by executives,
• public announcements of corporate actions (press releases),
• court filings, patent applications,
• government audit or inspection reports,
• customer testimonials or complaints,
• product instruction manuals or specifications.

The primary reason for my quoting of WP:ORGIND in the paragraph of mine that you've quoted from at the start of your post is because it provides a clear description of the requirements for "Independent Content":

• • must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

I also refer to WP:SIRS which says

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source, primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

With all that in mind, you say there are "many instances" where I've gotten it wrong and you provide links to 5 references which you say is it "nonsense" to suggest that the articles "all rely entirely on announcements and/or interviews". With respect, I think it is utter nonsense for you to even bring The Medium reference into this discussion and reflects poorly on your grasp of NCORP.

• This from Medium has as the first line "As a part of our series about business leaders who are shaking things up in their industry, I had the pleasure of interviewing Alfonso Cobo and Andy McCune." It is a Q&A with the answers provided verbatim. It is precisely the type of reference which NCORP says cannot be used to establish notability and it is utter nonsense for you to not only suggest that this reference can be used to establish notability but that it is incorrect to dismiss it *for the purposes of establishing notability*. It may, of course, be used as a reference to support facts/information within the article.

The Drover's Wife points to "at least two mainstream media profiles of the company" which were dismissed because the "journalist talked to, and quoted, someone from the company in the profile". I assume these references are two of the remaining four linked to above.

• The Evening Standard reference says "we spoke to the duo to find out where Unfold came from and what’s next for the popular app" and I am unable to point to anything in that article which evidences "Independent Content". All of the pertinent information comes from the founders and/or the company. Can you point to any in-depth information on the company that is "Independent Content".
• The Fast Company reference is also entirely reliant on information provided by the company. The article is also focused on the App itself rather than the company. Halfway through the article it says "Today, Unfold is launching the next stage of its business: a design agency for Instagram Stories" which provides the "context" of the article. Again, point to any in-depth information on the company that is "Independent Content"
• The CNBN reference also relies entirely on an interview with the founders, there isn't any in-depth information on the company.
• The BuiltinNY relies entirely on an interview with the founder, same issues as above.

So where exactly are you finding justification in the guidelines for your position that interviews are perfectly OK and may be used to establish the notability of a company? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, again, WP:ORGIND makes no reference to interviews and your constant reference to interviews directly correlated to that shortcut is disingenuous. Interviews are listed (elsewhere) as an example of sources that might be considered ("frequently encountered as") primary, but it does not say that all interviews are primary sources. And we know that not all interviews are primary sources. And it also doesn't say that interviews aren't independent. And we know that many are independent. Again, these are not examples of people interviewing themselves. There's no reason to think journalists who conduct interviewers are inherently not independent compared to other journalists, right? I've never suggested that all interviews are okay. But by saying - without qualification - that interviews are unacceptable, you've effectively suggested that all interviews aren't acceptable. And you have used that synthesis of guidelines to reject things at RFC and support deletion at AFD. Don't get hung up on one random example source within one example RFC... this is a much bigger problem (I simply picked a handful from the last few days). St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Part of the issue seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a journalistic interview, conducted by a journalist who is independent of the subject and published in a reliable source (which most would interpret as coverage of the subject by an independent reliable source) and the sort of interview described by this guideline as a primary source (the "chat with our CEO" interview that the company then pays to have published). Journalistic interviews constitute original and independent opinion (in their decision to interview the subject and publish the article, and any additional editorialising) analysis, investigation (in their development of questions, and any additional analysis) and fact checking (in verifying the information they elicited and in publishing the material with editorial oversight) that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (the journalist, to whom the article is attributed, and who we assume is not being paid by the company if they are publishing in a reliable source). St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Eh?

(1) Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. (2) In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:(3) memoirs or interviews by executives

It might not say "all" interviews but jeez you'd think it wouldn't have to, its pretty clear as it is. It certainly doesn't give much wriggle room to say there can be exceptions where an interview with a company executive somehow isn't a primary source. And I also made it pretty clear above that WP:ORGIND also pretty much discounts the content because "Independent Content" requires in-depth information which is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So .. not sure where you're going with your argument here unless we're back to the vague hand-waving kind of argument which evaporates to an opinion when put under scrutiny.

There is no "fundamental misundertanding" on my part on what is contained in NCORP. So no, if the content of the article relies entirely on information provided by an executive or the company, then there is no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the information was not "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". It doesn't matter a jot if, in your opinion, you believe that because it was published in the NYT or FT, that's good enough. If the interpretation that you're putting forward was the intention "let's allow interviews which appear in certain publications and conducted in a certain manner to establish notability", I say "Well, then that's what should have been put in the Guideline". And if believe the guidelines are ambiguous or unclear, my advice is to lay off attacking those of us who spend the majority of our time and effort at NCORP related topics and instead file an RfC to get the changes you want put in place. I don't really care.

And your statement "Journalistic interviews constitute "original and independent opinion" (in their decision to interview the subject and publish the article, and any additional editorialising)" is mind-bogglingly stupid. A "decision" to publish the article does not make it an "original and independent opinion".

My bottom line is, I really don't care what's in the NCORP Guidelines. Really. I don't give a crap. If it wants to exclude restaurants and have a different guide for those establishments, great (actually I think that's a good idea). Same with record labels. And "creative" firms that rely on the person who gives their name to the firm. There's lots of productive areas where I believe the NCORP guidelines are not a good fit and need tweaking that perhaps you can turn your attention towards, just lay off attacking the merry band of grunts (I count myself in that lot) that are trying to implement NCORP as it is written. My bottom line, I'm happy to implement whatever is contained in the Guidelines in as fair a manner as I possibly can. Until then, unless (and I'm in danger of repeating myself here) you can point to NCORP guidelines which I've "misinterpreted", this discussion is really just your opinion and has no basis in fact or in NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"let's allow interviews which appear in certain publications and conducted in a certain manner to establish notability" ...yes? If they meet the requirements of WP:GNG... why wouldn't we? You keep getting stuck on "independent" but a journalist doesn't lose their independence to their interview subject just because they quote their interview subject. The journalist, to whom the source is attributed, is still independent. So the source remains independent of the subject.

It should be interpreted as including wiggle room, of course, because not all interviews are primary sources and there are exceptions. In fact, normal journalistic practice means there are going to be many exceptions. And so interpreting that part of the guideline as an absolute, without exception, is problematic. I happen to think NCORP is fairly clear in that it does not absolutely rule particular types of sources in or out. It says "frequently encountered". It doesn't say "always" or "all" or even "most". In fact, "frequently" might not even mean "in the majority of cases". Again, your continued suggestion that it should be interpreted as "all" is problematic. I've now highlighted that misinterpretation several times. In fact, you've acknowledged that your interpretation of guidelines is at odds with community consensus and have lamented that fact to the point of walking away. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps then the wording should be changed to clarify? As it is currently worded, there's no "wriggle room" - it says interviews are Primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. End of. You can't expect editors to inject words that aren't in the text to come up with "wriggle room". And *sigh* no, I did not "acknowledge" that my "interpretation of guidelines was at odds with community consensus". You're referring to this DRV and what I "acknowledged" was my surprise/frustration/deflation at learning how "consensus" is formed at AfD. Specifically, I said Genuinely, I don't get why we bother with NCORP at all to be honest if all it takes is for enough !voters to turn up an say "Fails/Passes GNG" and the closer counts them up. which, in my opinion, is a problem and will likely result in the AfD process being games even more that it is already.

This looks like it's going around the same track as this lengthy, extended discussion about interviews at WP:N. It's a long read, but many editors seem to feel there is a critical difference between an interview which basically acts to transmit whatever the interviewee says, and interviews that also provide context and analysis. Then there are the articles in which someone from a company is quoted, and disagreement among editors on whether that counts as an interview or not. The discussion was archived without any resolution, so I think it's still a problematic issue. Strong feelings on both sides. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And the question of whether the subject being interviewed by a respected reliable source (in the first place) confers some level of notability, in and of itself. I'm happy to accept that the question has not been resolved. The issue here is that a strict and absolute interpretation (which does not have consensus) is being used to unilaterally reject the contributions of others. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need to explain why *your* interpretation (which doesn't have consensus) should trump anybody else's interpretation - especially in circumstances where the specific wording in the guidelines doesn't have any of the "wriggle room" you say *should* exist but clearly doesn't. You've at least now admitted the issue is "unresolved" and it's about a "strict" interpretation (which is another way of saying "exactly as written") or whether there should be some unspecified "flexibility" (which results in even more debates and disagreements and was the main driver for tightening up the guidelines in 2018 in the first place). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say all interviews are primary sources. It provides a non-exhaustive list of some of the sources that might be considered primary sources (but doesn't say they always are, in fact it even says "frequently" instead of "always", "usually" or even "most often"). It also says nothing about the independence of interviews and your oft-cited section WP:ORGIND doesn't reference interviews at all. And at AFD, though people might get bogged down the minutiae of it, there is a chance to debate those things, discuss them, and form a consensus. The big issue here, again, is that a particular interpretation of guidelines (that all interviews are primary sources and not independent) is being used to unilaterally exclude content at AFC. My interpretation shouldn't trump that of anyone else. Nor should yours, and that's the point. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hang on, what? The guidelines say that Primary Sources can't be used to establish notability - that means *all* Primary Sources (I don't even know what I have to highlight that). It then goes on to say that "In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:(3) memoirs or interviews by executives". The context/meaning of the word "frequently" in that sentence is to point out that a proportion of the Primary Sources that are found in a Business context happen to be interviews/memoirs. Your perverse interpretation of that simple sentence is to twist the use of the word "frequently" to mean that not all "Interviews" are "Primary Sources". Ridiculous. Also, ORGIND is relevant insofar it requires "Independent Content" - that is, content that is clearly attributable to a source unconnected to the organization. For example, an interview where a company exec provides details about the company isn't "Independent Content". And I know you've combed through my previous edits/comments (since you previously mentioned that) and so you must also be also aware of discussions where I explain that an article that contains an interview (or parts of one) isn't automatically rejected (which you've tried to accuse me of) - perhaps the journalist provides their own independent in-depth comment/opinion/etc on the interview content. So no, articles based on interviews are not "unilaterally" excluded from establishing notability, but the number of articles that use an interview in order to expand and provide in-depth analysis/opinion/etc on the company are (from my experience) extremely rare. Once you remove the interview and focus on the "Independent Content", often there is nothing of substance left. Your interpretation of NCORP appears, to me, to involve simply ignoring (or perversely interpreting) those parts of NCORP that you don't like and get in your way of allowing a reference to be used to establish notability and to date you've provided nothing from NCORP to disabuse me (or anyone else) of that notion. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not all interviews are primary sources; there's broad agreement with that above and below. Some are. And a source, attributable to an independent journalist at a respectable newspaper, isn't somehow not independent because some of the content came from a company representative. The unilateralism is in your decision-making at AFC. Because there's a difference between "rare" (which might be true) and "never" (the basis for your rejections). Even if we accept that those sources are rarely acceptable (and disagree on the rarity), that would still not be sufficient basis on which to claim they never are and reject content. Ultimately, my interpretation of - or feelings toward - NCORP are irrelevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading NCORP guidelines. It says all interviews are Primary sources, so you're wrong on that. If you want to disagree, fine, but that's just being obtuse and isn't supported by anything in NCORP. You're also wrong in saying there's "broad agreement" that not all interviews are primary sources. What other people are saying is that an article containing an interview *with analysis* is different. The interview is a Primary Source, the analysis may contain "Independent Content" as it won't be from the Primary Source but will be an independent opinion/analysis/whatever. Which is exactly my position too. So stop trying to position my interpretation as being a unilateral decision that goes against NCORP. Why don't you go back and take a look at the "Medium" article you previously said shouldn't have been rejected and point out which parts of that you now claim isn't a Primary Source and that it meets NCORP's criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, that was but one randomly selected source from one randomly rejected AFC. It's clear you don't see those rejections as a problem. Okay. I disagree, and I disagreed to the point of seeking the assistance of others to undo the damage that I believed had been done. There was no campaign or vendetta. I saw something problematic and drew attention to it. Had I not thought you retired, I might not have even pinged you, that's how little this is a personal issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason there' is a basic diference is that an interview without analysis on subjects liek this is not actual journalism, but pandering to promotionalism -- it may even be an interview which may never have actually taken place, but a reformulated press release. There is no newspaper I know of that can be completely trusted not to publish them. The diea that there were any completely reliable sources in all circumstances wsa naïve . We can only judge by looking at the actual sources, If the only thing reported is what the individula said, it amounts to a reprint of what the individual said, and has no more authority than if it had been published on their own web page.

This does not mean than even an inteview with analysis is NPOV journalism, or journalism with the integrity to be a RS. But if the journalist at least records their own analysis, it shows they had thought about the subject, or at least wants to pretend they have. It may still be a copy of what the subject thinks or says, but at least the journalist wants to be seen as making an effort. I know this sounds cynical, but it's based on the only thing that can be judged, the contents that is published, We have no way of judging actual honesty, but at least we can infer it rom the contents.

That a respectable source has chosen to publish the interview does not confer notability to the subject , it shows skill of the press agent, whose job it is to arrange such interviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's clear that an interview with no accompanying analysis is a primary source, and can't form a complete picture of the individual for use in article text, the idea that such interviews should be ipso facto discounted for assessing GNG is well wide of the mark. As with all such decisions, context matters. A feature-length interview with a journalist, printed in a high-quality paper such as The Guardian or The New York Times should be regarded as conferring notability, as we've already determined that those publications have full editorial control and are not going to be pushed around by agents just trying to get some nobody into the limelight. Other publications maybe less so. But that's why we have AFD, so that these things can be considered on a case-by-case basis, because every topic has a different level of coverage. The bottom line is that NCORP should not be getting to prescriptive about this matter in any direction, because the provisions of GNG and long-standing practice at AFD already get this right by and large.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Question Amakuru, what about WP:ORGIND's definition of "Independent Content" which says that in order for a reference to count towards establishing notability, it must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If a publication such as you've mentioned creates an article which relies entirely on an interview with no opinion/analysis/etc evident, how are we supposed to square that with ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Interviews without analysis are primary sources and do not establish notability, generally speaking. That being said, if the NYT or paper of similar caliber prints an interview, serious thought should be given to whether or not analysis has taken place and what degree of editorial judgement was involved in printing the interview. In short: there's a big difference between an interview with the New York Times and an interview with the local business journal that prints anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• There's a difference between an interview with a company rep and an article that includes information gleaned from interviews with company reps. Just because a company rep was interviewed for the article does not necessarily make the whole article an interview. And what Tony said. Some interviews are more equal than others. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. There are scores of companies with millions of employees, yet the New York Times runs only one interview a week in its Corner Office series. See [NY Times Corner Office home page]. Being selected does indeed make the person notable, and simply crediting a skillful PR person for the subject's inclusion suggests an unsubstantiated bias against interviews. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The information from an interviewee is not independent of the interviewee. Neither is any of the back-and-forth conversation between interviewer and interviewee. Introductory comment and subsequent comment by the interviewer, in the absence of the interviewee, is independent. Unless the interviewee reviewed it, or paid for it in any way. The solution for GNG analysis is to ignore all of the interview content, and then look at what’s left, and the question is usually simply “is what’s left significant coverage?”. It’s not really about “primary” vs “secondary”, as subjective comment about oneself is non-independent secondary source material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Information from an interviewee about the interviewee is not independent of the interviewee. But if the interviewee is talking about a subject with no connection to the interviewee, then that information is independent of the interviewee.

  I think we get too hung up on the format in these discussions. If someone says "The Great Hospital was historically important", then the person's independence from the hospital doesn't depend on whether the person is making that claim during an interview, by self-publishing it on social media, or by writing a scholarly book about it. What matters is whether the person saying this has a connection to the organization. If no, it's independent. If yes, it's non-independent.

  See also Wikipedia:Interviews. This is far from the first time the subject has come up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The classic case is where the interviewee is the founder of the company that is the subject of the interview.

  Where there is no connection between the interviewee and the interviewer, either that means the topic is notable, or there is a hidden undeclared connection. How do you tell the difference? On a borderline notable topic, barely two qualifying sources total. I reckon the language style gives it away. Fawning means connected. Fawning with token critiquing also means connected. Maybe the interviewer is just a fan of the topic? I reckon that counts as connected, and that fandom is even foul of WP:NOTADVOCACY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't agree. You tell when someone is connected by having some evidence that they are connected – not by dissing everyone who happens to have a positive view and thus filling the articles with negative campaigning.

  There are topics for which common sense is sufficient to indicate that every reliable source is unconnected (e.g., Algebra: it doesn't matter how enthusiastic you are, you don't have a conflict of interest) or whose connection is so tenuous as to be irrelevant for our purposes (e.g., sources writing about one of their [sixteen] great-great-grandparents). More importantly, there are authors and publishers who are known to have primary connections that we normally accept, e.g., that Car and Driver magazine can be enthusiastic about a car without any Wikipedian declaring that their (occasional) glowing reviews indicate a hidden undeclared connection. It's not okay for editors to decide, on the basis of a news article having the "wrong" POV about a company or product or using the "wrong" style guide, that reputable mainstream media is secretly being compensated to promote the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  “Fawning” does not mean “to have a positive view”.

  POV matters, a lot. Not so much the direction of the POV, but the location. Close? Arms length? Or distant? POV is not “wrong”, but POV can be characterised. If the POV is of a product user, having bought it yesterday and used it once, that is too close SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think Wikipedia's understanding of POV is about the "location" of the author, at least if I understand correctly that "location" is a measure of the author's relationship to the subject (e.g., a close relationship vs an arm's-length relationship). I believe that Wikipedia's understanding of POV is more closely related to what you're calling the "direction" – that is, whether the author says the subject is a good/bad/neutral/mixed/whatever thing.

  On your example, I believe the general approach has been that a typical review written by a bona fide consumer (e.g., a product review posted at Amazon) is generally considered independent of the company/product but completely unreliable as user-generated content (and therefore unusable for notability purposes), no matter what the customer writes about the product. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV does have emphasis on direction, but perspective (near medium far, in time as well as space) is necessarily there.

  At Afd, and AfC, and from experience at DRV, it is my reading of they community that they are unimpressed by near sources, even if it is rarely articulated as that. A customer is usually too close, both time and space, and the source gets short shrift. Wikipedia does not like sources that are personal experience or testimony. Explanations typically claim “NOTNEWS” or “primary source” (and incorrectly even), but I prefer my explanation: Good sources write from a distant perspective. The author is uninvolved, and dispassionate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that "dispassionate" is the true. We wouldn't prefer sources that can't really decide whether climate change is happening, sources that think the views for and against teaching girls to read are equally valid, sources that shrug their shoulders and say that it just doesn't matter what you believe about the morality of genocide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Dispassionate" is straying into the ideal, beyond "required". Whatever the topic, a better, more NPOV, source is one that persuades by facts and logic, not by force of personality (passion) of the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification or "change of meaning"

Hi, I believed I was clarifying a paragraph but it was reverted as a "change of meaning" by The Drover's Wife without any explanation. WP:CORPDEPTH currently reads as follows:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

The first line of WP:NCORP says the guidelines are to assist in determining whether the topic is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. So if we are considering an article on an organizations separately from an article on the product, the current wording of CORPDEPTH is ambiguous. It is possible to read the text and make an argument that "deep or significant coverage" of a "product" (as per the second sentence) can be used to establish the notability of the organization (as per the third sentence). This is not the intention and the section headed "Significant coverage of the company itself" supports my interpretation. I propose the following change which I believe removes the current ambiguity, provides further clarification and is uncontroversial.

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the subject, whether that is a product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides the subject with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the subject.

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with HighKing. This is a clarification, not a change in meaning. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe not "change" the meaning, but certainly "expand" it, and OP's edit summary makes that clear. This is about expanding WP:NCORP by delineating products, companies, or organizations to require that each be assessed on their own merits, even where some clear conflation exists. Already we have seen this argument at AFD where a company name and the product they make is one in the same. Despite being one in the same, in-depth reviews of the product - it is argued - do not contribute to the notability of the organisation. This is nonsense, obviously. If I review Tesla (the product), I am giving coverage to Tesla (the product) and Tesla (the company that makes the product). Does this make it easier for a company to meet our inclusion criteria because they make a notable product? Yes, obviously. But the same can be said of authors who write notable books, or sportspeople who win notable competitions. Subjects that make a notable contribution to the world are worthy of note. Requiring in-depth coverage of the company's corporate structure, employees, and business practices, distinct from in-depth coverage of the products they make, is disingenuously exclusionary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a few points there. First line of NCORP says:
    • This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service.
    • The WP:ORGIN section says verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.
    • The WP:ORGCRIT section says A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

There is no problem and I've never said otherwise if an in-depth review of the product/service also provides in-depth information on the company/organization. But nowhere in the guidelines does it say (and I note you haven't pointed it out anywhere) that a review of Tesla (the product) also bestows notability on Tesla (the company). If I've missed that, please point it out. Other guidelines deal with authors and sports teams so not sure what your point is there.

• The first point in the WP:SIRS section says Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

If I've missed something, point to the guidelines and show me where. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, you've successfully quoted the current version of WP:NCORP on the talk page of WP:NCORP. I disagree with your narrow and exclusionary interpretation. My point is that most of those other guidelines include non-coverage-based ways in which subjects can qualify for inclusion, most commonly by being the creative force behind a notable subject. WP:INHERIT applies, of course, but the default is reasonable flexibility, not rigid dogmatism (which we consistently see with regard to this guideline). And your misinterpretation of this guideline is borderline disruptive, as are your attempts to make the guideline more exclusionary by stealth. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again, your personal commentary is really getting thin and tired. I like to deal with facts and what is written. I note you haven't managed to point to anything in the NCORP guideline (the one we're actually discussing) which supports your opinion. If you want to mix and match from different guidelines when making an argument at AfD or DRV, off you go, nobody stopping you, but you'll probably find others like me who will point it out. And sure, you are also entitled to your opinion that my interpretation is "narrow and exclusionary" but I'll point out once again, you haven't highlighted or quoted from any section of NCORP where you can say "Hey, HighKing, do you not think this paragraph can be interpreted to mean X rather than Y". If the guidelines had a section which said "the default here is reasonable flexibility, not rigid dogmatism" then guess what, I'd rigidly and dogmatically implement that part of the guideline too. So no, the clarification I propose is in line with existing sections and the spirit of the guideline. The conspiracy theory about "more exclusionary by stealth" is in your head and your commentary is over-the-top and uncalled for. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, I'm pointing to the elements of other guidelines, established by consensus, that seem to be blindly ignored here in favour of some weird hyper-strict interpretation. And I'm pointing to discussions like this one (which prompted my engagement here in the first place). And I'm pointing to essays like this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why are you discussing "other guidelines"? This is a guideline too, also established by consensus. Quit ducking the issue - point to where, in this guideline, my "weird hyper-strict interpretation" is wrong. If you don't like this guideline, then set up a section to change it, but you don't get to childishly name-call other editors just because you can't read. If you can't point to an error or mistake in how it is being applied, there's nothing to discuss. You're having a tantrum because you don't like how the guideline has been worded and is being applied - fine, I get then. But you're only making a fool of yourself with your ranting and vague hand waving. I've had enough of your ad hominen ill-informed attacks, jog on. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again, no, I am opposing your proposed change on the basis that it takes an already "much stricter" (by your own definition) guideline, and takes it even further away from other comparable guidelines. At DRV you complained that NCORP was being bypassed at AFD in favour of GNG. But your efforts here magnify that problem and push NCORP further away from consistency with other guidelines. You are the one who has taken issue with how the guideline is worded and how it is applied by the community. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• You keep saying stuff which isn't true. No, I did not complain at DRV that NCORP was being bypassed "in favour of GNG" but that the closer of an NCORP-related AfD appears to not have the ability (because of "supervote") to discount !votes which aren't in line with NCORP guidelines. Different issue and please stop misrepresenting what went on at that DRV. As to this issue, fine - you think the clarification takes this guideline "even further away" from other "comparable guidelines". We'll disagree on that and leave it to others. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• "why bother having separate guidelines for organizations (e.g. NCORP) at all if !voters can ignore it[?]" and "Genuinely, I don't get why we bother with NCORP at all to be honest if all it takes is for enough !voters to turn up an say "Fails/Passes GNG" and the closer counts them up.". I don't think I'm misrepresenting anything, but okay. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if you're just deliberately misconstruing my position to perpetuate your personal vendetta or if there's an innocent misunderstanding on your part. My comments above are in relation to the role of a closer at AfD where even if the topic comes under NCORP, !votes don't necessarily have to make any arguments based on NCORP even if their !votes don't have any reasoning or where it can be pointed out that the topic fails NCORP requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's no "personal vendetta" here. You made a change, it was reverted (not by me). You then suggested it here and I expressed an opinion about it. That's (very much) distinct from my concerns about your activities elsewhere. All I was suggesting is that - in my view - this change makes a situation you are already frustrated about even worse. You're free to disagree. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• No "personal vendetta"? Bullshit. You've been on other pages and here ranting that my "conduct" is disruptive, that I've damaged the 'cylopedia, that it should be taken to ANI/AN, with sly snide name-calling comments peppered everywhere, trying to make out that I was some sort of "lone wolf" with a perverse interpretation of NCORP. So no, you don't get to walk that back and say "Oh, I simply "disagree" with you". You say it is a "change" but it isn't a "change" based on the text of NCORP, it's a change based on your *opinion* of what other guidelines say. What your game is really about it to try to get NCORP dismantled and trying to use me as the scapegoat, so with respect, fuck you and your agenda and yes, your "personal vendetta". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nope, I participated at a DRV, noticed a broader problem with your editing, and sought advice from one of the other participants there (a former admin) about whether it would best be dealt with at ANI (noting that you had indicated you were taking a break / retiring). Ultimately I ended up here where I raised my concerns in a separate thread and commented on this proposed edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stalwart111 said it better than I could have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging participants in previous RfC (from 2018 when this text was adopted) to increase range and volume of participation. TonyBallioni, Galobtter, Smallbones, Risker, Insertcleverphrasehere, My name is not dave, Ammarpad, Rentier, Noyster, K.e.coffman, Jbhunley, DGG, Kudpung, WhatamIdoing, Masem, Cbl62, Bagumba, Bri, Atlantic306, SamHolt6, Eggishorn, Carrite, Premeditated Chaos, JzG, L3X1, Chris troutman, Kb.au, RileyBugz, BU Rob13, Edison, Slakr, North8000, Retired electrician. Apologies. There are some debates above and below where other viewpoints would be most helpful. I'll step back unless someone pings me for whatever reason, I've said my piece. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I looked at the (proposed) change but if there are interactions with other parts of the guideline I have not analyzed those. To me it looks like a change, to a slightly less imperfect version but still a change. This is about organizations and companies yet the current wording seems to be also talking about self-notability of other things like products. The change partially resolves this by replacing "subject" with "organization". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I can't tell the difference between the two, so I'm fine with HighKing's changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Tony, and I have no objections to this change. I also don't think this change is important, and I predict that it will have no practical effect at all.

  I found the explanation by @Stalwart111 both illuminating and wrong. Stalwart, thank you, sincerely, for taking the time to explain your concern.

  The problem with the opposition argument is that it doesn't have any relationship to the purpose of our notability rules. See WP:WHYN: Why do we have these rules? Because these rules help us figure out whether you can actually write a decent, policy-compliant encyclopedia article.

  Taking the car example: Imagine that I have a stack of serious product reviews. We're talking professional journalists, experts in the field, the whole thing – the polar opposite of some guy posting on his social media. Imagine that everything in these reviews describe everything you could wish to know about the product. Imagine also that the only thing they say about the manufacturer is: its name.

  Now: How much of an encyclopedia article could you actually write about the manufacturer (and not its products) using only these sources? The answer is: "Tesla, Inc. manufactures Tesla cars." That's it. In that scenario, that is the only thing those sources tell you about the company. That's not a decent encyclopedia article; it's a sub-stub.

  If these were the only sources available (which is certainly not the case for Tesla, but it is the case for some companies), the only way to write a longer article about the company itself would be to throw NPOV and NOR out the window and have the article Wikipedia:Based upon non-independent sources (e.g., Tesla's website), or to take the WP:COATRACK approach of actually writing an article about the product while pretending to write an article about the company. (By "pretending", I mean that you would use the company's name as the title, but >90% of the content would be about the products rather than the company.)

  In other words, an independent source that only namechecks the company could not "count" towards notability for the company because that source would not, in actual practice, help us add more policy-compliant sentences to an encyclopedia article about the company. The test for "counting" towards notability needs to be practical. If an independent produces policy-compliant, encyclopedic content, it counts. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• I broadly agree. My concern was just as much about the edit summary as the edit itself. The edit summary seemed to foreshadow something not entirely achieved by this lone edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• My edit summary was "NCORP guidelines are for both products and organizations. A review of, say, a product does not confer notability on the company and vice versa. Removing the ambiguity from the guideline" - which agrees precisely with the (longer and fuller) explanation above. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly. In the context of any other guideline, that would not be the case; authors who write notable books, architects who design notable buildings, or scientists who make notable discoveries. But your suggestion that that NCORP should be different for companies that make notable products. Okay, you can hold that view. I disagree and so I oppose this proposed change if that's what you say this change will achieve. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• It isn't what *I* say, its what NCORP says. It isn't my "suggestion", its stated in black and white in the NCORP guidelines. It has been explained to you by me and by several other people. You even say you "broadly agree" with the explanation by WhatamIdoing but now the problem is the edit summary? You can't point to a single sentence or section of NCORP to support what your saying. It's getting very obvious that your real problem is that you simply don't like NCORP and want it changed/clarified/whatever. Fine, go ahead, but stop your personalisation and vendetta against me. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• You made the edit (which included that edit summary), it was reverted, you brought it here, people are commenting, those people include me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Well, @HighKing, I think your edit was fine, but your edit summary is not quite right. I suspect that what you meant in the edit summary was correct, but what you wrote doesn't perfectly align with what I suspect you meant.

  Specifically, you wrote "A review of, say, a product does not confer notability on the company", and it would be more precise and wiki-lawyer-proof to say "A review exclusively of a product does not confer notability on the company". One could easily imagine sources that are mostly product reviews but which additionally provided significant information about the manufacturers; in that situation, the same source confers notability on both the product and the company. (I used one such product review just last week to order a new dishwasher.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, OK, yes that is the meaning I intended and that clarification is required to avoid loopholes and ambiguity. Thank you. Also could say that the information provided about the company must also meet CORPDEPTH if it is to be used to establish notability. So for example, some reviews provide a boilerplate or single-line description of the company e,g, "Product X is manufactured by Company Y in New Jersey and sold directly to consumers through its own branded stores" and in my opinion this doesn't meet CORPDEPTH even though the company is "mentioned". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that single-source-in-isolation interpretation of CORPDEPTH is universally held. I remember King of Hearts saying the opposite last summer. If you can meet CORPDEPTH's stated goal ("makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization") by combining shorter descriptions of the company from many sources (e.g., perhaps one names the location and a product, and another names the founding year and the founder's name, etc., and between them all, you can write several solid paragraphs), then I think most editors would consider those sources as each contributing a small amount towards notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Many sources, no two of them significant on their own? I’m not finding it credible, “solid” in “you can write several solid paragraphs”. Many weak things in combination building something is better called “papier-mâché”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case, though. If you're going to write an encyclopedia article about an organization, there's a certain amount of typical territory you want to cover, such as its origin (date, place, people) and its current situation (e.g., whether it's still open).

  You might have in hand a book, Hospitals with Funny Founding Stories, that tells you that Smallville General Hospital was founded in 1891 because an out-of-town man broke his leg, and the doctor's wife refused to have the stranger recuperate in her home. You might have a US government webpage that tells you there are 24 beds, that it is located in Smallville, that there is an emergency room but no dedicated psychiatric facilities, and that it gets funding through the Critical Access Hospital program. A separate US government webpage tells you that it gets funding through Medicare. You might have a short article in the local newspaper that says they hired Jean Lee, MD as the head last month and another one (whose primary topic is the local unpopularity of home births) that mentions in passing that nearly every baby born in the city during the last 50 years was born at that hospital, and a third short piece that says the hospital volunteer program opened in 1917 and closed in 2009 due to staffing difficulties.

  It's true that we have never yet seen a general hospital with so few sources (just the construction of the building normally gets multiple newspaper articles amounting to thousands of words), but even if you only had ten brief sources like these, I think you could write a decent encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Could? Maybe. But unlikely. Many thin sources, like what I read you as describing, amounts to primary source sleuthing. The standard is to look for two independent secondary sources. 100 words? Two running sentences of comment? Two running paragraphs? Measures depth of coverage are not established, but a couple of good secondary source either includes the primary source data, or points to it, and there is not need to rely on secondary sources rated #3 down to establish that the GNG is met. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Several of the hypothetical sources I named are secondary, and all of them are independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Secondary source typing depends on many things, such as how the sources is being used, and exactly what for. Secondary source ascription is not absolute.

  Independence is a matter of degrees, and for commercial topics (companies, their products, their founders or CEOs) that are being actively promoted, non-independence is routinely actively concealed. For commercial topics, for coverage in publications that run paid advertising, I consider the lack of declaration of independence to be an implicit statement of non-independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  My unhappiness with the notion of many thin sources adding up to scrape across the GNG line is that this is the way too common story of so many sad AfD deletions, and AfC declines. These guidelines are written for new Wikipedians, and it is awful to see them burning their volunteer energy on hopeless cases. A skilled Wikipedian may well make your case, but a beginner on this path is headed for defeat.

  Tell the newcomers, to start a new topic, you need two or three (maximum!) quality sources to cross the notability threshold. Call it a lie-to-children. Guidelines are not written for people who know what they are doing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also add that WP:SIRS makes it pretty clear that we don't scrape something together from multiple "thin" sources. Each reference stands on its own and must meet certain criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that the community at large supports SIRS as strongly as you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am convinced that when push comes to shove, WP:SIRS is a winning argument. Two qualifying sources must be all of the several things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why is it that editors use the argument "community at large doesn't support X" when its in the Guidelines which were created and supported by the community? I mean, look at the hoo-ha in the section above when trying to make a fairly straight-forward clarification or go back and read the RfC's involved in making bigger changes to Guidelines. No offense but that reasoning shouldn't be tolerated, it is just a tiresome form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I often encounter it with IAR as well (which doesn't mean what a lot of editors try to say it means). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per Tony and WhatamIdoing. This is merely a clarification and doesn't change the status quo of how we write articles. I appreciate Stalwart's arguments, but personally find them unconvincing. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 21:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Request to summarize Consensus I think the discussion has petered out, could somebody take a look at what the consensus is, whether to make the changes or not. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Products and services

I have a few products I want to write articles on, but WP:PRODUCTS seems woefully inadequate for someone looking for guidance on writing such articles, seeming only to advise the user on what to do in case an article on a non-notable product is created and warning against mass stub creation. It's not like there aren't ANY Wikipedia-notable products out there, what with it's extensive library of articles on movies, TV series, video games, commercial vehicles, etc. So what's my play here? WP:GNG? Americanfreedom (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Americanfreedom. Can you help us out here, by telling us what kind of product you want to write about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:WhatamIdoing I'm sorry, I slept on it and I guess my main complaint is that there's specific sets of notability criteria for certain products and services like films, television series, video games, commercial vehicles, etc. but not something general like "Wikipedia:Notability (products and services)" where one could go to get an idea of what products and services are eligible for entries. I guess the more I type it out, the more I'm thinking it's a WP:SOFIXIT issue on my end. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom, most specific commercial products (e.g., the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator) and product lines (all Illudium Explosive Space Modulators, not just the Q-36 model) are covered by this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:WhatamIdoing Hmm, OK, So I guess a separate page detailing the criteria a product or service would need to pass in order to have an article on Wikipedia is unnecessary? Maybe I'm just not comprehending what's there already. Anyway thanks for your time. Americanfreedom (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Americanfreedom, it seems unnecessary to me.

If you want to talk through an example, feel free to post a note on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG is the general guideline, but note "independent" and "reliable" in it. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out here that WP:NOT#CATALOG also applies to a degree. We can likely have a page about every iPhone model because there are indepth coverage of each when the model is announced. On the other hand, every Nokia phone is likely not apt for a page due to being so many variations that have little coverage individually, though there are a few notable models themselves.

I do think that keeping the NORG concepts of ORGCRIT is important for products; Wikipedia pages about products absolutely should avoid pulling too much from primary or dependent sources outside of backing technical details (like product specifications otherwise not covered elsewhere). Also, I believe for products, it should be more than establishing the product exists (which typically come through announcements, release info, pricing, etc. -- generally what is "primary" information provided through press releases without any transformation of thought), but should be about the commentary about why the product is important to document. Eg: what features are novel, what is improved from past products, how it was built or developed, and where it is possible, how end users (reviewers and critics) received or reviewed the product. That's essentially the "secondary" and "reliable" factors of the GNG we want to hear about, of course, but in context of products. --Masem (t) 19:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:Masem Hey! Thanks for tanking the time to answer! I was aware of the "Wikipedia is not a catalog" guideline which is why I was wondering if WP:GNG would be the right play (I have it in my mind that as long as something passes the GNG, it'll be that much less likely to be put up for/get deleted, so that's what I generally shoot for when writing an article). So a good product article, in your view, would have to point out WHY this particular thing is unique or special alright, I think I can do that. Thanks!Americanfreedom (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Hi, I don't understand why tertiary sources are not allowed for proving org notability. By definition, they are even further from the subject, then secondary. Also, for example, if a reputable source published a list of 100 biggest companies of some country (and every company has a little info in that publication) or something like that - is that a tertiary source? --Kanzat (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In your example, a lot depends on the data and how the publication compiled its list. One could actually make an argument that it was a primary source… as it is a list of the 100 largest companies in the opinion of the publication (using unique criteria). How does one measure “largest”… by assets? By the number of employees? By square footage of property owned? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

By assets and by the number of employees are usually quite common criteria, so both should be valid. But still - even if we think about some encyclopedia of organization (because encyclopedias are usually an example of what is a tertiary source) - I don't understand why that can't be used as a proof of notability. --Kanzat (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Notability only means "is there enough reliable, independent source text I could read about this subject, and then use that text as a source to help me write an encyclopedia article". It means only that, and it means nothing else except that. Let's pretend (for the sake of the discussion) that the ONLY reliable, independent thing that ANYONE has EVER written about some company is that they appeared on such a list of "100 Biggest Companies in Stankonia" or whatever. So our Wikipedia article consists of a single sentence, and will never properly exist of more than one sentence. That's not sufficient to write an article about. So no, a single mention in a single list is not a sufficient amount of source text to write an article about a company. --Jayron32 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Pre-proposal for NCHURCH

Hello. I had opened a conversation at the Village pump (you can have a look at it to better understand my train of thought). Due to this conversation, I submit to you a draft (hence "pre-proposal") of what I think should be added at WP:NCHURCH:

An administrative subdivision of a religious organisation (be it called diocese, archidiocese, bishopric, archbishopric, pastoral unit, eparchy, metropolis, patriarchate, catholicosate, mission, apostolate) must independently meet the notability criteria for a religious organisation. This means being mentioned or described by its own - notable or not - religious organisation, or by other subdivisions of this organisaton, does not make the administrative subdivision of said religious organisation notable. Also, if an administrative subdivision of a religious organisation is notable, this does not mean its religious organisation ipso facto (by this very fact) meets the notability criteria; in this case, the religious organisation must still independently meet the notability criteria.

By "mentioned or described by its own notable religious organisation, or by subdivisions of this organisaton" I have specifically in mind: 1) the monasteries, abbeys and affiliated organisations (e.g. the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) which often publish books or articles about their own religious organisations and the organisation's subdivisions, 2) religious organisations publishing information about their own subdivisions (e.g. the Annuario Pontificio).
Pinging those who took part in the Village pump discussion @A. C. Santacruz, WhatamIdoing, Blueboar, and Ad Orientem:.
Anyone's feedback on this would be much appreciated! Veverve (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is a need to amend the guideline to spell this all out… as it is already covered under WP:BRANCH. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this seems unnecessary.

Also, I don't think that we've ever seen a case in which an organizational subdivision qualifies for an article, but the parent organization doesn't. What you've written in the last sentence is true, in theory, but it is pointless in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary complication of existing policy in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Education boards

How do we evaluate the notability of educational boards that award the secondary and senior secondary certificates. These are either based on regular study pattern or on the distance education pattern. For the first instance, they have a plethora of schools affiliated with them and for the second instance, they operate through several study centers. For example, we have the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education that awards certificates to students that study from its affiliated schools. How do we evaluate the notability of boards? Do we consider GNG here or do we have a separate guideline to look at for this? In India, there are several open education boards, some established through executive orders, but they do not tend to meet the GNG criteria and we cannot evaluate them under the same criteria we use for schools? Does anyone think that WP:NORG is to be used here or are educational boards inherently notable because they manage education at a broad level? Ideas. Thanks and regards. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging DGG, Hatchens and hitroMilanese. Can you guys give some input here? Thanks ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If they operate the schools, then they's fall under our practice for school districts--we make the article on the district, and use it to list the schools, or to be a container articles for articles on the schools. If they do not operate but supervise or set standards for the schools, there's a complicated US example, complicated enough to match any found elsewhere: University of the State of New York , Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, and New York Regents Examinations. They could be evaluated as Government departments, or looking for material about the examinations. I would be very reluctant to try to figure this out for any system I didn't know very well--I picked the one where I'm a native. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC).

DGG, I see that. What if those are non-government educational boards? Would we still see them as "school districts" or perhaps evaluate them under the guideline which we use for government departments just because they supervise and set standards for secondary and senior secondary exams as well and have several study centers operating throughout a country. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we do for the the boards running religious schools, and sometimes but not always for those running a chain of private schools (I usually !vote to include, so we can use them to redirect individual school articles also) . For a private body merely providing certification without running schools, we have articles on some of them, but that would be plan WP:GNG, because they wouldn't be useful as combination articles for the schools.

I do not know about this instance, but it sometimes is not all that clear what the actual function is; the function can change over time; and even the public/private distinction is sometimes ambiguous. (as a partially related example I do know, in the U.S. colleges are certified by private agencies, who are in turn authorized by government agencies to do the certification.). To avoid having to make these sorts of non-obvious distinctions, my inclination would be to include the articles in most cases, . DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on the applicability of WP:NCORP to Esports teams

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the line The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. be altered to state:

• A: That esports are within the scope of this notability guideline
• B: That esports are not within the scope of this notability guideline
• C: No change

This RfC is proposed in the context of the no consensus Stalwart Esports AfD where the closer opined that there was a "real need" for guidance on which guideline or policy was controlling. 02:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. See below for reasoning. In my opinion, esports teams are the same as a sports team. If we're going to update NCORP to explicitly include esports teams, we need to remove "with the exception of [...] sports teams". If we don't include both, then B. Otherwise, A. Anarchyte (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A While I'd love to think that esports should be treated as real sports, that's still not the state of the rest of the world. And since corporate sponsorship is a major factor in esports organizations, they should fall under NCORP. --Masem (t) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  The International Olympic Committee considers esports a sporting activity, and esports will be at the 2022 Asian Games. There is no need to devolve this to a no true Scotsman, or perhaps better said, no true sportsman. The primary question should be whether it is a better fit for one or the other guideline. Is corporate sponsorship not a major factor in (other) sport clubs? Dege31 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Neither exactly. Instead For-profit professional organisations are covered by WP:NCORP".

I propose that non-profit, community organisations, should be split out of WP:NCORP.

Esports, per se, are not under NCORP, but ECORP organisations are. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I never have heard of non-profit esports team. And in any case, non-profit businesses are covered by NCORP as well. --Masem (t) 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to "That esports organisations are within the scope of this notability guideline", but that is not what A reads. Is every esports topic an organisation?

I am noting a years-long tendency of WP:CORP to tighten GNG black letter reading on for-profit, actively-promoting organisations, and suggesting a split. Non-profit organisations do not need to be held to the same hard standard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The point of NCORP is to avoid the excessive self-promotion that entities tend to do. Including non-profits. There's a good reason they should be retained in NCORP. --Masem (t) 06:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is what is implied by the context of the existing line, but assuming User:Masem and User:Anarchyte, as the two who have commented so far, don't object, then I have no objection to clarifying by changing A and B by replacing "esports" with "groups of people organized together for the purpose of esports". BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s a good idea, but I’d like it to use the word “organisation”. Not everything organised is an organisation. I’d prefer the distinction to lie on whether it is an organisation with finances. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option A Notable esport teams are primarily corporate or business ventures and are not yet equivalent to independent professional sports teams as covered by mainstream independent reliable sports sources. This may change but not yet. Cullen328 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: Pardon my ignorance, and perhaps Masem may be able to answer too, but why are sports teams not covered by NCORP? Is Juventus not a corporate entity? Anarchyte (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Anarchyte, professional sports teams and their players and management in general are excluded from this particular notability guideline because we have well-established sports specific notability guidelines. WP:NFOOTY is perhaps the best known for association football worldwide, but there are similar guidelines for American professional sports also popular in other countries, such as basketball, baseball and gridiron football. Then there is cricket, tennis, golf and on and on, each with its own sports-specific notability guideline. So it goes. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, right. I've not spent much time with NSPORTS, so thank you for the explanation. In that case I'm going to update my !vote to A. A nice alternative to this in the future may be to have a discussion about WP:NVIDEOGAMES and expand that out to where we can consider it a notability guideline and have it discuss video games, video game players (as an alternative to WP:NBIO), and esports teams. Anarchyte (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'd also add that NSPORTS specifically covers sports teams but not all other sports organizations, eg sports organizations like the NFL itself. Those other organizations I'd expect would be covered by NCORP as well to prevent similar self-promotion.

  But again, I think with esports, it is the fact that they have yet to get similar recognition as a true sport that makes them difficult to treat with NSPORT, and instead fall to the other existing SNGs. That doesn't mean we can't cover them (eg we have Overwatch League and all of its teams), but I think it absolutely makes sense to treat organizations of esports with the same stricter concerns of NCORP at this point. --Masem (t) 14:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B: That esports are not within the scope of this notability guideline, if a regular sports team is not included then esports should not be. List esports alongside other sports.Tepkunset (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, sports teams are organizations, so of course they fall under it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - Esports should fall under the same category as regular sports. The argument that esport teams are somehow more of a corporate product than say the Dallas Cowboys or Manchester City is pretty weak and seems to have its entire basis in the fact that outdoor sports have been around for a longer time. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B. NCORP's approach to local/regional coverage represented a departure from our general notability guideline and should be kept limited in scope and not expanded into new areas. Cbl62 (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A as nominator. WP:NCORP was created in part to address the proliferation of promotional content, and when considering whether it should or should not apply to Esports we have to consider it in this context. According to a source of indeterminate reliability Esports teams make money through five streams; prize pools, sponsorships, streaming, ads, and merchandise. Of these, four of them are heavily dependent on the team being popular and well known, thus inclining them to promotional content, and as such they seem to fit perfectly within the scope of WP:NCORP. BilledMammal (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That description applies to "traditional" sports teams essentially verbatim, but those are excluded from the guideline. Mlb96 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B I find PraiseVivec's argument compelling. As sport teams are currently excluded, it feels natural that esports teams should be excluded too. NemesisAT (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that esports teams are more closely related to bridge teams such as the Dallas Aces than they are to traditional sports teams (and just as with Esports, there is some debate over whether bridge is a sport), and as bridge teams are not excluded from the guidelines, esports teams should not be either. BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option B There is no real distinction between traditional sports teams and esports teams, and the suggestion that traditional sports teams aren't corporate endeavors which exist for the sole purpose of making money is absolutely laughable. I suggest that people take off their WP:IDONTLIKEIT-tinted glasses before trying to argue that esports teams are any different from traditional sports teams in that regard. If the concern is that we don't have an SNG, then the solution is to make an SNG, not to shove them into an already existing guideline. Mlb96 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree that there shouldn't be an exception for sports teams without specialized notability criteria, but that is a different discussion - just because other problems exist doesn't mean we can't fix this one. The only question is whether an esports "company" is less inclined than a traditional company to engage in the practices that this guideline was created to prevent, and not only do I think they are not less likely, I think they are more likely than the average company, based on the evidence above. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that that one link you posted really proves anything. You mentioned that four of the five revenue streams for esports teams rely on popularity, but traditional sports teams rely on nearly the exact same revenue streams. Both esports teams and traditional sports teams have corporate sponsors, advertisement deals, and merchandise. And while traditional sports teams don't make money off of streaming, they do make money off of ticket sales, which is essentially the same concept: the more people who watch their games, the more money they make. So there isn't any distinction that would matter for purposes of this guideline. If we need to, we can write WP:NESPORTS, but we shouldn't stick esports teams into a guideline that they don't fit into. Mlb96 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Rereading your post, it seems like I didn't directly address the argument you were actually making, so let me clarify. I do not think that it is fallacious for me to point to how sports teams are treated by our notability guidelines, because the crux of the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy is that the other thing is also a problem that simply hasn't been fixed yet. But sports teams are excluded from WP:NCORP on purpose; it isn't a problem that needs to be fixed. Therefore, the comparison is valid. Mlb96 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• In essence, you are arguing to consistency within the broad category of sports, while I disagree that we require consistency, both because it is permissible to address smaller problems even when if it makes those areas inconsistent with areas where the problems still exist (see the Olympics discussion on WP:NSPORTS, where such a decision was made), and because sports is such a diverse field that there is nothing wrong with treating different sports differently, as demonstrated by the proliferation of sport-specific guidance. However, I don't think we will agree on this, so I will just leave it at that.

I will add that I also don't agree that sports are the closest analogy; I think the name has misled us. Just as computer games are more closely related to board games and card games than they are to traditional sports, computer game ("esports") teams are more closely related to card game teams such as the Dallas Aces, and as these teams are covered by NCORP, it would not be inconsistent for esports teams to be covered by it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• A. All sport teams should fall under here, as they are organizations. We are too inclusive for them anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• B. I see no significant difference between esports and "real" sports - both are extremely commercialized endeavors. Now, whether sports teams should be an exception at all could be debated, but we definitely shouldn't carve out an exception to the exception. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, we already have carved out such an exception to the exception with Bridge, which is recognized as a sport by several countries. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (esports falls under NCORP)

• The notion, a simple reading of Option A, and stated by Seraphimblade “sports teams are organizations, so of course they fall under it”, is careless. An amateur esports team is not impossible. The RfC’s wording needs improvement, or rejection as underbaked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Worth noting that WP:NCORP can cover amateur organizations. Amateur radio organizations would be an obvious example of this. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  True, and on a tangent I think for-profit organisations, their founders CEOs and products should be treated more strictly than non-profits (and largely due to their propensity to spend money on native advertising and WP:UPEs, but the fine point here is that not everything esports is an organisation. An Esports organisation should fall squarely under NCORP (and strictly), an amateur team that makes the news for spectacular results, no. An article on the sociology of esporting, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Analysis of private user data in peer-reviewed papers

I want to ask a general question about the application of the following part to indepedent peer-reviewed scholarly papers, which work with private data from certain websites. "Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." Does the notion independent content here apply to the text of the paper or to the data, they are based on?--Geysirhead (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course any answer is mere interpretation. But I think that the intent and common interpretation refers to the text, not the data. From a notability standpoint, I think that the main point is that an independent RS has decided to write about them in depth. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think Geysirhead is referring to a recent AfD and their position appears to be (correct me if I'm mistaken) that *any* peer-reviewed scholarly paper should *automatically* meet the requirements for establishing notability of organizations/companies (regardless of the content of said paper). In this particular AfD, the paper took Google search data (from Google) and website data (from the topic company) and analysed that data to report on the breakdown of interactions on the organization's website. They reported various metrics such as male/female, breakdown of email addresses used to sign up (gmail.com, yahoo.com, etc) number of interactions per "customer", etc. Fairly basic analytics with little real insights and almost zero in-depth information on the company that would appear in the topic article (which has since been deleted). I'm not sure why the question is being posed in terms of "Independent Content" though as the discussion at the AfD centered around CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NSCHOOL and non-profit schools

According to WP:NSCHOOL "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." I assume that would include non-profit schools since it clearly says "all schools" and non-profit schools aren't specifically singled out. The wording is clearly ambiguous though and there's been some debates in AfDs about which one of the three options, if any, non-profit schools have to satisfy. So I'd like some feedback about it. IMO non-profit schools should have to satisfy WP:NORG like every other type of non-profit organization does. Other people seem to think the sentence is saying that non-profit schools only have to satisfy WP:GNG though. So I'd appreciate some clarity on when (or if) a non-profit school specifically has to pass the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Given how closely WP:NORG follows (and duplicates) WP:GNG, I am finding it difficult to think of a situation where a non-profit school would pass one guideline but not pass the the other. Can you point us to some specific examples where this debate has occurred? Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One difference is that WP:NORG is stricter then WP:GNG in what it considers trivial coverage. Which is where most people decide to go with WP:GNG. Like WP:NORG says the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure aren't usable for notability, but WP:GNG is perfectly fine with articles about those subjects showing notability. At least that's what people say. Same goes for product line launches, sale, change, sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work, discontinuance, Etc. Etc.

For some examples there's the references to the China Morning Post in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School (2nd nomination). If we were going with WP:NORG they would be considered trivial, but are probably passable if WP:GNG is the notability guideline to follow. Another example is from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westwood International School. Where SportingFlyer voted keep based on this source, which is about the school firing their headmaster. While it doesn't work for WP:NORG, it does for WP:GNG. The five references provided by SportingFlyer in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hope Academy Rwanda are along the same lines. An article about the schools annual science fair would likely work for WP:GNG but not WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The sentence uses the very common English word "or" which means to anyone who understands very basic English that WP:GNG is enough. There's nothing at all ambiguous about it. You may wish to argue for a different position, if you think that will somehow lead to a better encyclopedia, but the current policy is crystal clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not "arguing for a different position", I'm just asking for clarification about what the guidelines currently say. I've already asked you once to assume good faith and I'm going to do it again. Please assume good faith and stop treating me like I'm doing or saying things that I'm not doing or saying. In the meantime, if it was "very basic English" that anyone can understand there wouldn't be disagreements about it and I wouldn't be asking for clarification. I'd appreciate it if you didn't insinuate I'm stupid and don't know basic English. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The "or" is also used at the top of WP:GNG where one of the bullets reads It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. The "or" here suggests to me that meeting GNG is always enough for articles of any subject (unless excluded by WP:NOT). NemesisAT (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to read it. Although it would mean the SNGs are pointless, and I doubt that's the case. There's also this line "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article." Which kind of hedges the whole thing to make it sound like even WP:GNG isn't adequate sometimes. That's one of the reasons I said that the guidelines are ambiguous about which guideline to use and when to use them. Each section and subsection says something completely different that contradicts the others, or at least is so vague it sounds like they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So going by the comments so far it seems like the takeaway from the discussion is that no one has any idea when a non-profit school has to pass the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. Is that a correct reading of what's been said in the discussion so far? In other words, if someone was to say a non-profit school has to pass WP:NORG then that would be as accurate as someone saying it only has to pass WP:GNG because we really have no clue in what circumstances to apply which guideline, or really when to ignore both of them? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody has said that but you. The guideline uses the word "or", so it is enough for a non-profit school (and the vast majority of schools in the world that provide general education to children are non-profit) to pass the WP:GNG in order to pass the guideline for schools. It is always possible for guidelines to be overridden by consensus in a particular unforeseen circumstance, but that applies to all topics, not just schools. And that requires people to discuss things as intelligent adults, rather than treat everything as a battleground where someone has to "win". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Your the only here treating this like a battleground by repeatedly turning this into a personal discussion and lecturing me about things in every message your written. I'd appreciate if you stopped doing so and instead stick to the topic of this. Which isn't airing personal issues you have with people in this conversation. If you have a legitimate issue with anyone I do or say then write me a message about it on my talk page and we discuss it like adults in a civil manner. This isn't the place for it though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that a part of the answer to your question is clear-cut and the other isn't. The clear cut part is that if it satisfies the sourcing-based GNG, then it doesn't need to satisfy the SNG. Going beyond that, we're forced to deal with how the fuzzy wp notability ecosystem works rather than being able to find an explicit answer in the guidelines. My attempt at describing that is at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works On one hand, I believe that, under that fuzzy system, that the organization SNG higher standard for sources provides organization-specific "calibration" of the GNG source standard, in essence raising the source standard of GNG for organizations. But, ague-ably this tougher source standard is from / more intended for for-profit ventures like businesses. On the other hand, many of these are also facilities which are also significant geographic places, which have a much lower bar for inclusion which IMHO affects decisions. I know that that isn't a clean answer, but possibly it is the actual one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't see how something could satisfy an SNG but not satisfy GNG. So the whole "if it satisfies the sourcing-based GNG, then it doesn't need to satisfy the SNG" seems rather circular because if that's the case then we can just call it good at the GNG every time. Without bothering to take the extra leap to have it satisfy an SNG. Which I don't think is in the spirit of the guidelines. Also I find the whole distinction between for-profit ventures and non-profit ones in the notability guidelines rather bizarre. What's ultimately the difference between a non-profit school that charges it's student an attendance fee and a for-profit school that does the exact same thing? Why should the former have a lower bar applied to it just because of it's legal status? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I know the guideline says a topic must pass either an SNG “or” GNG… but asking which takes precedence is pure wikilawyering. It misses the entire point…

The ultimate GOAL is for the topic to meet BOTH GNG and the relevant SNG - at the same time. If one or the other isn’t met - FIX THE PROBLEM. Improve the article until it passes both the relevant SNG and GNG. Then you know you have a solid article. Don’t settle for minimum standards. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

While I ultimately agree with that, the reason I brought this up was because there has repeatedly been disagreements in AfDs about what notability guidelines schools need to satisfy. The constant back and forth on both sides isn't really productive and the only way it won't occur anymore IMO is if which guideline to use for schools and when is clarified. While I'm more then willing to say "it depends on the circumstance. Lets just make the best encyclopedia we can" and leave it at, other people aren't. It's also un-realistic think people will just magically not settle for minimum standards when guideline's lack of clarity allows them to do just that. In the meantime, it's not wikilawyering to ask for clarification about something. Especially when the clarification would stop a lot of needless bludgeoning from happening. Clarifying the guidelines would also improve the quality of the encyclopedia overall by not allowing certain articles to be deleted when they otherwise shouldn't be or visa versa. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are looking for a clear answer from the guidelines, it does not exist. This is the most vague, conflicting area of all of the core policies/guidelines. My answer was more from trying to discern how the the fuzzy wp notability systems treats the topic. I do need to maybe disagree with BlueBoar's post in one narrow area, depending on how one interprets their words. If something fully meets the sourcing GNG, there isn't anything that generally says that we need to worry about also meeting the special provision of the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. The WP:SNG section of the GNG explicitly points out that SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability and with reference too NCORP says strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. So I'd say it's explicitly mentioned that you have to worry about the special provision of the SNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations of any type should still be considered under NORG, as these organziations, while not in the business of making money, are still in the business of getting their name known and people to contribute to their cause. --Masem (t) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)