Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (organizations and companies) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

(Rated Project-Class)

	v • d • e This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Project	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Companies

(Rated Project-Class, High-importance)

Companies portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

High

This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] NBRII draft page review

I am a rookie here so please forgive any transgressions. I have recently created a draft of a page describing the company that I work for. Someone before me created a page for the same company but was perhaps a little overzealous and created a page that was deemed to be very spammy. I do not want to repeat this mistake.

After some discussions and great help from other Wikipedians,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_47#Stop_me_before_I_spam_again

I am trying to post a more unbiased account of the company. As I said, I do work for the company but I am not posting this for marketing reasons. The company has been in business for over 28 years and has been of service to many very large corporations. I truly feel it is a vital and noteworthy organization.

Could someone please review my draft and give me any criticisms or corrections that would help make sure this page isn't out of line? I would like to be more confidant before I take it live.

Thank you in advance for any help. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jopa123/nbri

Jopa123 (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need to read WP:COI. As to your proposal, it fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CORP. Notability from employees is mentioned but notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback it is much appreciated. Do you have time to clarify a little? I have read the WP:COI. Being a private company and dealing with few, although major, clients it is not likely that a non-employee will create a page regarding the company and I really feel it would be a disservice to Wikipedia not to have an entry about them. I attempted to be as objective as I could.

My process was this, I copied the page from IBM since I felt it was very cut and dry and was probably created by a non-employee. I realize we are no IBM, but I tried to model the page after this. I also looked at competitors who are currently listed in Wikipedia. I tried to emulate what they did since their listings were obviously approved. I stripped out the things that I would personally flag for pure marketing material. And I tried to stay minimalist. This way I could at least have the basic company description listed.

Any ideas on how I can improve the violations that you discuss? As for the WP:RS, I listed the New York Times posting of Dr. West's materials and a PRWEB posting about Dr. Reed. As to WP:V, is there certain areas that need more verification? In regards to the notability, I am really not sure how to impress the fact that this is a major organization. Would a client list help?

I am not being argumentative. I am truly trying to understand and improve. Thanks again for your help

Jopa123 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The COI guideline does not say you can not edit, however it discourages it. From the guideline, Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount. In this case one could say that you are promoting the interests of the company since you are employed by them. Better to wait until someone else writes the article.

I think you need to read WP:RS again. What is needed is sources that have the company as a major topic and independent of the company. A mention does not work. The information from or about the employees also does not meet this for the company. The company being mentioned is not a case to establish notability.

The layout or format of the article is not of concern at this point. It is a matter of content so using the IBM article as a guide is not really an issue of doing anything right or wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if I am getting closer to compliance with the WP:RS, please. Thanks for any and all help. Jopa123 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Hospitals

I would ask that we create some sort of policy regarding notability of hospitals and medical centres. Far to many articles out there that are using the claim "I am a hospital/medical centre therefore I am notable" What establishes notability for a hospital? Does it have to have the normal independent reliable sources? benjicharlton (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of questionable articles? Clearly acute care hospitals are notable. Many special purpose hospitals are going to be notable since they will be sourced. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a function of reliable secondary sources. There is no such thing as "instant notability." If there isn't that kind of coverage, any article about the hospital would be WP:OR and would fail WP:V. Acute care hospitals are not notable just because they are acute care hospitals, they are notable because reliable secondary sources have information about them. There are some suggestions of WP:IAR that have been kicked around for articles with robust external primary sources (i.e. detailed census data). SDY (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

on "instant notability" - there is a class of articles for which notability is assumed: populated places (i.e. towns, villages and the like). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is more accurate to say that WP consensus is that articles on populated places will be kept in Wikipedia regardless of the place's (Wikipedia-defined)notability, (defined as receiving significant coverage in relaible secondary sources). A subtle, but important, difference. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I was referring to with the IAR and the census (censi? censuses? censora? fnord?) SDY (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in my mind I agree if a hospital is sourced it should be notable... but why are Acute Care hospitals notable (mind you my definition of acute care and yours are probable different) I australia we have many many small acute or primary care facilities, which generally stabilize severe patients prior to transfer to what we call a tertiary referral facility, which there might be 2 or 3 per state. BUT examples : - here we go.

Markham Stouffville Hospital

Dr.Jeyasekharan Medical trust and nursing home

Trinity Medical Center

Mat-Su Regional Medical Center

Gritman Medical Center

Johns Hopkins Hospital I include this link as this is an example of a very notable hospital - I mean I have heard of it in Australia!!

Thomas B. Finan Center

Gleneagles Medical Centre

I think thats a start...I think we need to ask that question "What is Encyclopaedic?" benjicharlton (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the hazards that we should be wary of is WP:NOTDIRECTORY: being a hospital is "not enough." That said, my guess is that hospitals associated with a medical school (for example and most notably Hopkins) can be presumed to be notable. Other than that, it will vary a lot by country. Hospitals without inpatient services are unlikely to be notable in developed countries, but they may be significant for the developing world. I don't know that a straight "yea or nay" answer is available, though I'd probably assume that any hospital that, to borrow from astronomy, is "Clearing the neighbourhood" is notable. SDY (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand upon what you mean by Clearing the neighbourhood benjicharlton (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In essence, a hospital that is the only significant medical facility in an area is more likely to be notable than "one of many." This will generally be reflected in secondary source coverage (i.e. local news) since there isn't much competition to write about. SDY (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is it about the normal rules that isn't adequate here? All organizations need reliable sources. A hospital that receives no media coverage is not notable -- just like any other organization. Given how easy it is for a hospital to get coverage in the local paper, practically any hospital with a publicity department will be able to provide a wide variety of "reliable sources" to support their notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking in some prior (closed) AFD debates on Hospitals

Stimulate some more debate.benjicharlton (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Benji, is there anything about the existing, normal rules that you think is inadequate here? What particular rules do you think we need to add? If you don't have any specific proposals, perhaps we should get back to doing more important work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically I keep seeing "Its a decent hospital therefore it must be notable" being reasons for keeps in AFD debates, no sources are quoted. The debate ends with a no consensus or weak keep based on the author adding WP:RS. Which does not happen. And even when a second AFD is launched the same reasoning is applied. The problem is that the community members voting have confict of interest to some degree. This seems in direct opposition to WP:N. If so I think we need to clarify the issue, so that AFD debates have guidelines to work by agreed by wikipedia community. If the outcome of this discussion is that hospitals must meet WP:CORP Great!! If not then we need to define what parts they do need to meet. Many reasons for keep that I see are "Dont tell me that my local hospital is not notable they looked after my insert relative". In my opinion as important as that is it does not mean a hospital is notable and that it should have a wikipedia page. More than likely it should be merged into an article on health in the local region. I think that we cannot presume notability of any hospital, if it is notable it will have reliable verifiable independent sources. benjicharlton (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think general notability rules are perfectly adequate in dealing with hospital articles. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything, though, it might be appropriate to have a "non-notability criteria" for hospitals which might trivially meet notability requirements but don't justify a full article, but I'd never endorse it as anything more than a notability essay. A full guideline would be pure WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Medical Center as example. The references are actual about a different historical hospital (probably deserving of its own Wikipedia page). None of them mention the Medical Centre. Quoting from the original AFD "if a high school with 500 students is notable, why isnt a hospital with thousands of patients notable, a high school just teaches one area of one community, this hospital treats the hundreds of thousands of people of west Contra Costa County" okay so fair enough - but if that was the case the Advocate needs to add reliable sources. But this never happened and a second AFD was killed quickly. It is classic assumption of notability. This is only one example. I mean a hospital closed and a medical centre opens down the road. The medical centre is not notable by default. benjicharlton (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I oppose the "presumed notability" of high schools as well, so I'm with you 100% on this one. SDY (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So we just need to educate the !voters at AfD. A hospital is an organization like any other, and it must have reliable sources just like any other. How could we write a fair and neutral article otherwise? But to make your task easier, I've added hospitals to the list. You might also find it helpful to make sure that such AfDs get listed here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note - this topic has got a bit under my skin...what is the likely reaction if I start cross checking all listed hospitals and start listing them under this concept... I dont want to appear as a wikidestroyer.benjicharlton (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're likely to have a lot of people mad at you, and it's small consolation to think that there's probably no reason for them to be mad at you. My suggestion is that you {{subst:prod}} such articles slowly, perhaps just one or two at a time, starting with the least notable hospitals, and only proposing deletion after doing an appropriate good-faith search for news articles about the hospital. If you find WP:RSs, then add them to the article instead of prodding it. Please start with the very simple prod process, instead of the overhead-intensive AfD. Particularly with the least notable hospitals, I doubt you'll get any objections. (Objections can be taken to AfD if necessary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that any government run or affiliated hospital is of note. Two examples of the range here are University of California, San Diego Medical Center and Lira Hospital, Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwagner607 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny newspapers

I'm pretty sure that this guideline (or perhaps WP:N) used to have language that at least suggested that getting your company into a small local newspaper wasn't really adequate proof of notability. (Otherwise, I believe several of my relatives qualify for Wikipedia articles: they were all repeatedly on the front page of the local newspaper... a single-sheet tabloid with a circulation of about two hundred subscribers.)

In a small town, practically any small business is "newsworthy" -- within the town. Opening a barbershop is front-page news in a small enough market. Any non-profit organization, no matter how minor, can get a short story like this one in a local market. But for notability purposes, it shouldn't be good enough to get one story in The Brooklyn Chronicle (circulation <1600^[1] and another in its rival The Grinnell Herald-Register (circulation 2700^[2]), even though this would technically represent media coverage in "multiple independent, third-party reliable sources".

Could we add a suggestion in this guideline that media coverage is generally expected to be national or at least regional in nature? I'd like something that is more 'explanatory' in nature, and that would be helpful to new editors that need to assess the likelihood of their article on a tiny organization being deleted. I have two specific proposals, and am open to all suggestions:

to change the "alternate criteria" for non-profits from "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found" to "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources that extend beyond the organization's local area can be found."
to expand the "primary criteria" section to include: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."

Does this seem appropriate to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

- I strongly agree with this proposol. In my case the local papers articles are not indepedently written, we often get approached by local journalist saying they will write feature pieces if we pay for advertising. The feature piece and add will be on seperate pages. Now there is a clear problem here with defining independence and reliability. (not to mention journalistic integrity) benjicharlton (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

- Does anyone object? There have been no further comments in the last three days, and if anyone does object, I'd like to hear from you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  - What does the source's audience mean? How do you measure it? I think that is too difficult to apply and should go. That is going to cause a lot of debate at AfD. The examples you have given fall down anyway without the need to change the guideline. Both are not extensive coverage of the subject and would fail anyway. If articles are not independently written, then again they fail under the original criteria as well as self-promotion. Attention by national media doesn't affect notability and a secondary source is a secondary source. It is really a question of how significant and extensive it is. Assize (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For a general newspaper, audience means circulation. Commercial media publishes these numbers (it's the primary factor in their advertising rates) and consequently these numbers are very easy to find. The reason I didn't use the term "circulation" is because (a) the term is specific to print media and (b) in some instances, you need to consider the actual audience: is this magazine directed towards a particular profession or demographic group? We want to leave room for a small-but-important source. Note as well that I didn't list a specific minimum circulation, because a number that is small for newspapers in New York City might be large for a professional magazine in New Zealand.

My goal, by the way, was not to help the AfD folks. It was to help all the inexperienced editors that want to write an article about their club, and need to figure out whether or not it's likely to be deleted. If you actually have problems at AfD because of this, I'd be willing to provide an "expert opinion" on what I was thinking at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly very strongly object - in both directions , to an unqualified statement. Local newspapers can be RSs for local events to the extent the events are notable. Some of what they contain is not reliable and is press released based, but that's the case for most publications, though to a variable extent. Regional newspapers afreusually based in one city, and what they cover is also sometimes not the least independent. There is no way to avoid human individual evaluation for such things. I would certainly accept a statement that regional and especially local newspapers be used cautiously as evidence of notability. (V is different: as evidence of non-controversial facts about an organization, any newspaper is probably adequate; as evidence for negative blp, almost any newspaper, national or not must be used rather cautiously.) DGG (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, your response confuses me. The statement under discussion has nothing to do with reliability/WP:V and nothing to do with individuals/WP:BLP. It only concerns a determination of notability/WP:N for local organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academic organizations

While it is true that many academic organizations have been mentioned in the news media and some have been the subject of independent scholarly research, many are not - they play a crucial role within the Academy but in fact are often not of interest to the news media or of scholars themselves. I don't think this policy covers such organizations adequately.

One question I have concerns this sentence in the policy: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Does this imply that an organization whose activities are of national or international scope are usually notable? The documentation for this by the way is almost always internally generated, because the only people who care about the organization's activities are its members.

But national academic organizations have many members, and more to the point most academics of a given field usually belong to the organization i.e. it is inclusive.

Might it be worth distinguishing between special interest organizations and professional organizations? It seems to me that a major concern here for a notability standard is to prevent the self-promotion of organizations who have a strong interest in self-promotion. This seems reasonable to me. But some organizations do not have a strong interest in self-promotion and we really need not be too concerned about an article here promoting that organization. This is what I am trying to get at in my phrasing "special interest organizations" and "professional organizations" but probably there is a better way to phrase it. I sure welcome suggestions. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been to annual meetings of scientific/technical societies, where scholars present papers, and people renew acquaintances and chase jobs. These rarely get press coverage unless someone presents a controversial paper which draws protesters. Yet they are well known to scholars or people in the field. Should there be inherent notability for national or international societies devoted to the advancement of learning? Or should there be a requirement for secondary sources or other indices of encyclopedic notability? Phi Beta Kappa has references in its article. I note that there was some discussion and edit warring regarding a tag placed on the article Society for Latin American Studies noting that it did not cite any references or sources, when it had an external link to its own website, and finally regarding the {{primarysources}} tag. What sources exist for citations to show that a professional or learned society is notable? Is it sufficient that their own website, or their own publiser, or their own journal state that they are important in their intellectual or professional realm? Most professional and technical publicatins are behind paywall, but those with a university affiliation could run down any sources which somehow evaluate organizations of this type. Another example of a professional society sourced only to its website is Association of Art Museum Curators, yet it has 600 members from 200 institutions[3]. The Psychonomic Society has 2500 members, has been in existence to 49 years, and publishes 6 refereed journals, but its only references are from its own publication. Edison (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now the SLAS article has only two references, one from the publisher of its journal (the only subscriptions are the ones for libraries or the free one that comes with society membership, so it is virtually in-house) and one from J-stor, for the same pub (and most academic organizations have publications, and most of those publications are covered by J-stor) ... this is not a lot. By comparison there are books published by academic presses that have information on the history or internal politice of the American Anthropological Association. So sometimes there are the kinds of secondary sources we prefer for most articles, but often there are not. I think Edison's example of the AAMC is a good one - I consider it to be notable on its face, whether its only source is its website or not. In these cases, where the organization has a natural constituency and little interest in promotion - or where the primary user of the website is people who are already members of the organization - I have found that their own website is the best source for information on the organization and a reliable source. I just feel the policy should have some guidelines on this. I am sure we all agree that we don't want Wikipedia abused, for example used to promote an organization ... and obviously having a website in and of itself cannot be enough, given how easy it is to create a website. Maybe we can say something about the age or size of the organization, but it seems to me that we can also talk about a kind of organization, specifically professional organizations, that do not need lots of citations. But the policy has to provide clear guidance on how to recognize legitimate professional organizations and distinguish them from fronts for a few guys who just want to publicize their views on the web. I would like to think that when it comes to AAA, SLAS, or AAMC one can tell just by looking at the website, but we cannot take this for granted. What language can we put into this policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about the verifiability issue. Anyone could start an "American Association for Architrave Studies" , (or any other nonexistent organization) with a list of officers, and a description of a journal, and have an article. I have seen hoax articles about towns, politicians, and even wars, which on the face seemed plausible. It could be shown to be a probable hoax, given an investment of time to find that no library holds the journal, but it is hard to prove a negative. WP:V has placed the burden on verifiability on the article creator or the supporters of the article. If a learned society is a constituent society of a national or international body of learned societies, that would be one checkoff or point of verification. Membership (for the US at least) in the American Council of Learned Societies [4] would be a point for verifying an American humanities-related organization,such as the AAMC mentioned above) but clearly this would be the tiniest fraction of such organizations. The Scholarly Societies Project of the University of Waterloo Library is a larger listing of such societies, and if it is regarded as a reliable source would be a verification that a society was not just something made up in school one day. Google Scholar might be a source of information. It has a stated policy for inclusion, and brief entries for SLAS [5] and the Psychonomic Society [6] but not for the "Association of Art Museum Curators." What references would a librarian use to determine the standing of a learned society? At Questia I see "International Encyclopedia of Learned Societies and Academies" by Joseph C. Kiger; Greenwood Press, 1993. 377 pgs, which might be a source (although 15 years old) for 100 societies in 50 countries outside the U.S. [7]. Kiger's "Research Institutions and Learned Societies" (1982) covers societies inside the US. Is there a reliable book/site more up to date and more comprehensive? Edison (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: The statement about local organizations implies nothing about non-local organizations. If you want to evaluate a non-local organization, then look at the advice for non-local organizations: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the abstract, I take WP:V very seriously. And I share Edison's concerns. But I do not think the policy was written with these kinds of organizations in mind. Most articles we have are on topics like Jesus and evolution and our policies were mostly written based on wisdom accumulated while working on those articles. In some cases - like BLP - our standards are harsher than our standards for other articles. It seems reasonable to wonder if there is also a class of articles where the standards could be looser. I appreciate Edison's listing of third-party resources - why not put these into the article? I think Edison's points are very helpful but I do not think this closes the discussion of the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with SLR. There are scholarly organizations that while notable are highly specialized and so may lack the widespread coverage of businesses. We could always create a sub-clause specifically for scholarly societies. However we need to be careful with this as it could be gamed. As far as sourcing goes this list isn't comprehensive (and is 2 yeasr out of date - I think) but scholarly-societies.org is looked after by the University of Waterloo library--Cailil ^talk 20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, in the context of scientific meeting,with the general feeling being that a series of national or international meetings might well be notable, on the same basis as a journal is, but not an individual academic meeting except in rare circumstances. I think that verifying the activities of almost any national organization can be done, except if people try to wikilawyer over the degree of independence of the sources or the extent of the discussion of them. It's not a question of the policy for V, but the standards for the guidelines of RS and of N. The source for associations of all sorts that is standard in libraries is Encyclopedia of Associations, published by the standard international reference publisher Gale, available on print or online, revised periodically. It excludes local organizations, and is selective. It's referred to as the standard in all the textbooks of reference work and library guides. I would accept it, (but not the Greenwood book, as the quality of their publications is extremely variable--most of them are not in the least selective.). First time I heard that Google Scholar had a stated consistent policy for anything at all; Edison, do you have a reference for that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public companies continued

Itemirus wrote above:

shall we make a list of worldwide notable companies and see what's missing from the encyclopedia or we wait and see what comes around?

UnitedStatesian and I suggested refinements to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics/Businesses and Organizations. Rossami cautioned that the requested articles lists are "less bad" than specific lists of quoted companies, and "Once they were moved out of the articlespace, the vandalism fell off - but that isolation created it's own problems."

I for one, and perhaps only one, would enjoy picking off one or two articles a month from a prioritised list, but I don't find the current list of requested articles inspiring. I enjoy researching notable companies I have never heard of, like Kagome Co., Ltd..

Rossami: what were the problems created by isolation?

So by all means, Itemirus, I would encourage you to create a prioritised list of red links (not in article space) but bear in mind that you and I may be the only ones that use it.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems of isolation of the lists. 1) They got ignored. Being isolated, they were less visible and often sat unattended for a very long time. 2) The person who set up the list sometimes had an agenda. 3) Wikiprojects tend to push people into tighter quarters than other areas of the project. When feathers get inevitably get ruffled and participants walk away, the wikiproject loses critical mass.
All in all, I still consider those problems less than the problems we had with the lists in the article space. If the current list of requested articles is uninspiring to you (because it certainly is to me too), why not scrap it and start over? Rossami (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On professional/academic sub-organizations

The existing guidelines seem insufficient for deciding whether to include significant sub-organizations, and by this I don't mean regional chapters, but sub-organization with a special focus. A prime example in computing are ACM SIGs. An example in medicine is SHSMD, part of AHA. I'm tempted to think that these should be included. Proposed criteria:

significant number of member (say > 1000), and
their own publications and/or conferences (perhaps more than 3 say)

What do you think? VG ☎ 17:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. What matters is the organization's notability, as in how much notice it received. A six-member organization that's in the headlines all the time gets an article; a thousand-member organization that does nothing of any interest to the average person gets no article. That they send out a quarterly newsletter and have an annual meeting is of no importance whatsoever.

As for the two specific examples you mention, I see no reason why they can't be adequately described in the article on the parent organization. ACM SIGs is already part of the ACM article, and SHSMD is up for AfD, which will probably result in it being merged to AHA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The main ACM page only has a list of SIGs. You could add all the SIG details to the main ACM page, but it would get very long... VG ☎ 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the individual SIGs sufficiently important that we actually need more than a list? For that matter, do we even need the list? Would it be sufficient -- for the purpose of having an encyclopedia article on the subject -- just to have a paragraph or two about the SIGs in general, followed by a footnote that links to a list of the SIGs at ACM's own website?

The bottom line for me is that I don't think you've demonstrated that there's a problem with the advice we give on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're so convinced the guidelines are okay, and that the SIG pages are superfluous, put your money where your mouth is: go ahead and prod all the SIGs. See you at the AfD. VG ☎ 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indy Record label

According to "Primary criteria" a business would be Notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. I found a Wikipedia article for an indy record label, Mo-Da-Mu. The article has (had) been tagged since October 2006 with "This article does not cite any references or sources." I added the "prod" tag today citing the "Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria" guidelines, and also restated the fact little work had been done since 2006. The tag was almost instantly removed (Along with the October 2006 tag) because "an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable". Two citations were added - a link the bands bio and a link to an "online history" of the band that states "Info provided by: www.divineindustries.com", which is the bands management - who also used to run the label in question. (Management Roster:54-40). Taken on it's own this article does not seem strong enough for any Wikipedia article - left un-cited for 2 years and in a stub form. Am I missing something in how an Indy record label, as an organization and/or company, should be considered for notability? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If they can't provide independent, third-party reliable sources, then you should have an easy time at WP:AFD with the article (which is your next step). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Commercial Organizations

I realize this topic has had considerable attention in the past, but the criteria seem to be to be insufficient to deal with the world. The main criterion is an organization whose "activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent". That would mean that an organization that does any international work whose works are verified is deemed to be notable. In other words, "international" scope of activities is being used as a proxy for "significant coverage. That just doesn't make sense.

Also, it would be useful to have guidance about government-related organizations--are they automatically notable, or do they need "significant coverage". Do the normal rules for splitting apply to sub-agencies or other subdivisions, or shuold they differ? For example, the NTIA has its own page--does that make sense, or should information about it be included in United States Department of Commerce? And its sub-agency, the Office of Spectrum Management, does not have its own article--should it? What about UN departments and agencies? Are they automatically notable, or do they need to receive "significant coverage"?

Bongo matic 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The verified by sources that are reliable and independent part is where were get the "significant coverage" aspect.

The point behind having the national/international limitation is that local non-profit organizations are often unusually adept at getting local and regional media coverage, and we don't really want an article on each of the half-million active non-profit organizations just in the U.S. (There's another half-million or so that are inactive.)

I'm not sure that we need very many special rules for either charities or government agencies. Either they've gotten significant coverage and affect a lot of people (so we want an article), or they aren't and they don't (so we don't). No organization is inherently notable. All organizations are notable only to the extent that we can find significant coverage by third-party, independent reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish I agreed, but under the current definition, the criterion that the source "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" does not apply if the organization has an international component. Bongo matic 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't read it that way either. See the very next sentence after the clause you're quoting which reads "In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." Being international in scale does not excuse the subject from the requirement to be independently and reliably sourcable.
I also have to disagree with your interpretation of the phrase "international in scale" as "doing international work". The Red Cross is international in scale. They have major operations around the globe in all areas of their activities. That's a far cry from my local church sending a mission team to build a house in Guatemala (which would be an example of international "work"). If anyone is interpreting "international in scale" that loosely, we need to correct the misunderstanding. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Bongo's understanding, but in an effort to eliminate even the possibility of confusion, I'll try a re-write on that paragraph. Let me know what you all think of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--this is an improvement, but I'd like to see more clarification of the meaning of "national or international in scale". Wanna try? Bongo matic 03:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a live dispute over this clause, or is this just a hypothetical "maybe we should eliminate editor judgment by defining everything in sight" question?

What do you think the common-sense meaning of the phrase is? This isn't a legal document; if a term is not defined, you can assume that its everyday meaning is the relevant one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes now mean that no organisation is notable unless they are national or international. That's wrong. There are many organisations that are not national or international that are notable under WP:N. You should just fix what international means, ie. not just that you trade internationally or nationally, but that you are recognised internationally.Assize (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you name one non-profit organization that is both recognized internationally and also could not be considered national or international in scale? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Philharmonic, like most major symphony orchestras, is a non-profit. They perform nationally and internationally, but... There are infamous local groups like the Branch Davidians that definitely meet the notability criteria without having international operations. SDY (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, NYP is "international in scale" because it recruits players from all around the world and performs (and is reported in media) internationally. It appears that Branch Davidian (the organization) could attempt a claim at being "national in scale" (competing parts of the organization were in different states). The Waco Siege, of course, was an event, and thus these rules aren't relevant for that article.

Additionally, both of these also clearly meet (or exceed) the existing rule for local organizations: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

←These observations--while true--do not explain what makes the organizations suitable as subjects for Wikipedia articles. Nor do they square with what I believe is the consensus view on the conventional meanings of "international scale" or "national scale". Bongo matic 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local coverage

I just wanted to say that

"Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

is a good suggestion. A flat prohibition often isn't nearly as effective as suggesting an acceptable compromise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F.F. Ertl III, Inc. Is it "notable"?

I am new to editing Wikipedia and have a quick question about the notability requirements. F.F. Ertl III, Inc. is a small manufacturer of die-cast collectibles and does not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I cannot find any articles mentioning them in any newspapers, but a quick Google search reveals several company profiles on third-party websites such as bizjournals.com. Does this qualify as notable?

For what it's worth, the company's two brands (Die-Cast Promotions and Highway 61) have a good reputation among die-cast collectors and many if not most involved in the hobby are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of these brands. You can verify this for yourself on various Internet message boards, but I cannot seem to find an answer to whether or not Internet message boards meet the requirements for "verifiable".

If all else fails, there is currently an encyclopedia of die-cast replica brands in national publication that I intend to acquire in the future, and I would assume that inclusion in such an encyclopedia would qualify a company as "notable".

Thank you for your time,
Robert

Jedimario (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably does not meet the notability guideline. The company profiles are likely a rehash of what the company published in a government filing or on its website. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

you should explore whether there are articles about them in specialized magazines, print or online., but not blogs. DGG (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of a US 501c3

In relation to United States Justice Foundation prod. The organization has been an amicus curiae in several lawsuits heard by the Ninth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. (refs in article). Does being an amicus curiae at the national level create notability? This has probably been addressed somewhere already, but not easy to find, so input requested, or an opinion that the question should be posted at a noticeboard. Novickas (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As the {{prod}} nominator for the above-mentioned article, you can probably guess my views on this. But it seems uncontroversial that being an amicus curiae--even if subsequently quoted or covered in detail in the opinion--is the opposite of being covered in a source independent of the subject, since the organization itself determines whether to file an amicus brief and determines the contents of such a brief if it files one. Bongo matic 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it does get significant 3rd-party coverage; 94 Google book hits [8]; 32 hits from ""United States Justice Foundation" site:.edu" [9]. It's harder to find sources from mainstream newspapers, they're mixed up with all the other Google hits, altho there's four from the LA Times [10] This is a question as to whether an org's AC presence in Supreme Court cases creates notability in and of itself. Novickas (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was an answer ("no") only to your question as to whether filing an amicus brief makes an organization notable, not to any more general question as to the notability of the United States Justice Foundation. Bongo matic 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in and of itself, I don't believe that an amicus curiae confers notability. It's essentially self-published, for one thing. But it sounds like you've got a lead on several other possible ways to demonstrate notability. Occasionally, orgs will list their publicity efforts on their website; don't forget to see if they have a "news stories about us" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, all. Sorry to say, the prod doesn't bother me enough to work harder on the article...I think it would survive AFD. Was mostly curiousity about the AC issue. Novickas (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Airlines/Air taxis in Alaska

Due to some disagreement at AfD about exactly where the bar is for micro-airlines, I am attempting to jump-start an old discussion here to determine if a specific standard needs to be developed for these organizations. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where/How to list offices of airlines that are not headquarters

A user and I disagreed over whether offices of airlines that are not headquarters should be listed in articles of small cities (i.e. Willow Grove, Pennsylvania) and business districts (i.e. Center City Philadelphia) - See User_talk:HkCaGu#Airport_offices

Many airlines operate offices in other cities in other countries - I feel that articles of neighborhoods and small cities should mention the airline operations in the "Economy" section as the airlines contribute tax revenue and employ area residents. The other user feels that this is too directory-like and is not particularly notable to the small cities and neighborhoods. What do you guys think? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is a guideline for determining whether an organization is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. If an airline satisfies the guideline then, by all means, write an article about the airline. Your question about article content is not answered by notability guidelines. Rather, it should be considered in terms of WP:IINFO. There is relevant guidance in an essay on connective trivia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ningauble, did you read the linked discussion? They're trying to create a rule that all airlines are "inherently notable" if (as I understand it) they meet this or that United States government regulation. The net result will be that if an airline listed with X government agency, it's "notable" and gets its own article, even if you can't find a single independent reliable source to base the article on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did: Notwithstanding that the thread begins with the presumption that airlines are inherently notable, that was not the question. The question there, and in this thread, was whether to list them in an article about a municipality or an area in which they have offices or operations. Notability, presumed or otherwise, was being used to justify doing so.

The question was not about notability criteria for creating articles, but use of notability for other purposes. It can be appropriate to mention non-notable things in an article about a notable subject if they are relevant and significant to that subject; and it can be inappropriate to list an example-farm of notable things that are only tangentially or trivially relevant to the subject. I believe my response was entirely on-point: notability is not the issue, it is a distraction. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? As far as I know there is no consensus for that suggestion and it is not being actively pursued. The proposal that appears like it could get consensus is that, if an airline does not have a code, it is probably not going to be notable. The wording does not attempt to force notability on any airline. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that we have multiple conversations on the same subject area. The discussion I refer to is on a subpage of "List of airlines in Alaska". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion linked in the opening paragraph of this thread. The confusion is understandable because the question does not relate to the main purpose of this forum. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of residential colleges

A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. The input and feedback of editors of this policy would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes at Meadow Woods

Official Web site of Cedar Bend at Wyndham Lakes in Meadow Woods, Orlando, Florida. Information for residents and visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsvirginsi (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Octagon Press Ltd

User:RadioFan flagged the article Octagon Press Ltd for lack of notability. The difficulty I'm having, which you'll see immediately if you have a look at the article now it's been extended, is that hardly anybody has said anything significant about the publisher itself, but the company's founder, authors and products have received extensive coverage and are notable. Folk talk about authors and books but often only mention publishers in passing, especially if the company is not quoted on the stock exchange.

The problem is that the letter of the wikipedia law rules out such inheritence. Is the wikipedia policy too inflexible here? Ideas most welcome. Thanks Esowteric (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources say that the Lotus Elan is a great car and the Lotus Elite is a great car, then we should be able to derive from that the fact that Lotus manufacture great cars, though a direct statement to this effect would be better. Wikipedia shouldn't favour those, often larger, companies who have worked on bringing their brand name to the public's attention.

Perhaps the wording might be changed to include "... or, in the case of organizations and companies with several or many of their own products or services [where merging, etc is not a suitable option], if these have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources showing the notability of those goods and services ..." or somesuch? Esowteric (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if there's very little published about the company, then the company simply should not be the subject of an article: Notability is not inherited. Instead, we'd merge that information to an article about a notable subject, such as the founder of the company. (If the founder is notable, and the company is an important part of the founder's life, then surely a section on the company would not be out of place in the biography.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of not inherited. Not inherited means that although the company may be notability, those connected with it are not necessarily, though it has been the general practice that presidents and ceos of notable companies are notable. Companies are notable though such things as significant products and market share. The notability of multiple significant products implies notability of the company producing it. DGG (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I must have been unclear: If a person is notable, then it does not follow that every company that this person works for, or has worked for, becomes notable because of the mere fact that they employed a notable person.

Even if a company has 100% market share, and a ground-breaking product, it is simply not possible to write an appropriately neutral article when there are no reliable sources from which to draw information and determine balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I am looking for some feedback. Please help.

THRI is a Florida not-for-profit organization that promotes basic human rights. T.H.R.I. is acronystic for The Human Rights Initiative. The corporation exists to provide homeless men, women, and children with housing, food and clothing, education, and health care. The organization's official website is www.TakingBackTheCity.org. Taking Back the City was chosen to allude to the notion of re-capturing the city and restoring its' people. T.H.R.I.'s mission is to radically transform the city—as well as the neighboring areas—by providing direct aid to homeless members of the community. T.H.R.I., Inc. was co-founded by Jonathon Ballard and Ryan Ross to end world poverty, beginning with the state of Florida.

Board of Directors

C.E.O._Jonathon M. Ballard

Director of Operations_Ryan J. Ross
Secretary_Stephanie Ross

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want to start an article? Then I suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and finding several good news stories about the organization. If you have a a handful of reliable sources about the organization, then you don't need permission here to start the article. (If no one has written about the organization [except itself], then it does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia -- you'll have to wait until it has received significant attention from the media.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I've moved a bunch of comments to the archive, but have not updated the "table of contents". I'm not sure that it's actually that useful. I wonder if it could be replaced with an archive search instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quantitative criteria to facilitate bot additions

If a company or organization is large enough, it significantly affects the lives of a large enough percentage of the world's people to be notable. In order that bots can detect and add missing articles, I suggest that we set some thresholds above which a company or organization is automatically notable. How about any one of the following?

Accounts for at least 0.1% of the total market capitalization of a stock exchange, for at least 30 calendar days continuously, including at least 20 trading days.
Production and added value in any one country equal to the greater of 0.01% of any one country's GDP or 10,000 times its per-capita GDP.
Accounts for at least 5% of any one country's imports, exports or domestic consumer sales in any calendar year.
Accounts for at least 0.01% of all international trade in any calendar year.
Production or added value accounting for at least 0.01% of the world's GDP.
The largest for-profit employer, or the largest NGO employer, in a country, city, state or province with a population of at least 5,000,000.
Employees in any one country equal to the greater of 5,000 or 0.1% of that country's population.

Neon Merlin 06:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No.

It seems likely that all, or very nearly all, such companies will happen to be notable, but articles must have references. Whether or not a company is notable depends entirely on the reliable sources, not on actual achievements. If a company could somehow manage to have 5,000 employees and never have been written up in a newspaper -- a circumstance that I believe to be, at most, "exceedingly rare" -- then that company is not notable, because it has received no notice in the media. (Frankly, companies are such publicity seekers that if you can't find two reliable sources for a company with 5,000 employees, then you're probably not trying very hard.)

Furthermore, in wikiland, these thresholds end up cutting both ways: if we say that ≥5,000 employees is "automatically notable", then it will be misinterpreted as "≤5,000 is "automatically non-notable".

Finally, some of your criteria are untenable. 0.1% of the population of tiny Niue requires just 1.4 employees; every single business in the country would become "notable" under that requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

All public companies in the US have reliable sources available. The objection doesn't apply there. I'm not sure of other countries. As for notability , this proposal is (correctly imho) advocated rejecting the GNG with respect to companies, and we could perfectly well do that if we wanted to, and I think we should. Partly this is due to the difficulty of deciding whether a source on a company is derived from PR or not. There are very few business sources that are completely free from this, & so the presence of what looks like an article may not be meaningful, & it can be very difficult to tell. After all it is actual business achievement that is notable. The GNG is just a handy tool--it need not apply if we do not want it to: it is not policy. As for what the cutoff ought to be, I;d agree with WhatamIdoing that in practice a great many below this line will be notable--perhaps by an at least an order of magnitude on most of the criteria. (for largest employer, I'd use 1 of the 10 largest in a community of over 50,000, 3 full orders of magnitude. For number of employees, it would depend on the business and the country. In particular, i think the companies with the largest market share in any line in any country are notable. I'd accept 5% share for a major industry, 25% for anything at all. But perhaps you are proposing conditions where a bot can safely add, in which case it should be separate for notability. You could certainly add all these, but it would be even better if you could get a bot to look for references. DGG (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me whether the bot would be providing sources. Articles about businesses that have no refs tend to get deleted, and WP:CORP can't authorize ignoring WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The primary notability criterion was first formulated here. Removing it here is both historically wrong and a bad idea. Criteria that talk in terms of percentage industry shares, number of employees, and other arbitrary figures, are wrongheaded, and have shown to be wrongheaded time and again in the archives of this discussion page. They lead to business directories. That the business directories that you allude to as reliable sources exist, covering all public companies in the U.S., is indeed the reason that we have these notability criteria, which incorporate our mission not to be a business directory, in the first place. Notability is not verifiability. These criteria, particular the primary criterion, are aimed squarely at preventing us from becoming a business directory, and that includes not becoming a business directory of "all businesses with more than X employees" or of "all businesses with Y% market share at some random point in time". Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and that is why the PNC specifies multiple, independent, reliable published works, covering the subject in depth by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ATLAS G.I.P.

It's a Romanian Oilfield Service Company (Logging and Perforating Company). It has over 60 years of experience in oilfield domain. At the beginning of the year 1931, the Schlumberger brothers established the Schlumberger Mission in the town of Campina, as Romania’s first well geophysical survey company – that being the beginning of the history of the nowadays ATLAS G.I.P. S.A. Company. That year, 1931, is also the year the electrical logging started to be systematically used in Romania, by the first such works carried out at Boldesti. Thus, Romania is one of the world’s first countries where electrical logging was implemented on an industrial scale. Between 1931 and 1948, the successful activity of the Schlumberger Mission took an essential step forward towards the development of geophysics in Romania, both by laying its theoretical basis – with the substantial contribution of the Academy member, Prof. Saba Stefanescu, and by the opportunity it gave for the import of then state-of-the-art methods and equipment worldwide.

The history of industrial geophysics evolution in Romania includes other important moments, such as the establishing of the Sovrompetrol Romanian-Soviet joint venture in 1945, of the Ploiesti Logging and Drilling Division in 1946, the nationalization of the Schlumberger Mission in 1948, the merging of the nationalized companies in Petrolifera Muntenia (around the nucleus of the former Schlumberger Mission) and Petrolifera Moldova. By the 1950 merger of Petrolifera Muntenia with the Logging and Drilling Division, that is of all well geophysics companies or centers in the country, the Ploiesti Drilling and Logging Company came into being, so it can be considered as the successor of the Schlumberger Mission.

S.C. ATLAS G.I.P. S.A. was established in 1991, under the 15/1990 Law regarding the transformation of the state owned companies into trade companies, by taking over all the assets the Ploiesti Logging and Perforation Company. The privatization of S.C. ATLAS G.I.P. S.A. took place in March, 2000, by the purchase of the majority stock by S.C. TENDER S.A., this moment marking a new stage of development – both for the company and the entire geophysical activity in Romania.

Weatherford International Eastern Europe SRL became the majoritary stockholder of S.C. ATLAS G.I.P. S.A. by purchasing 86% of the stocks held by S.C. TENDER S.A. in July 2008.

The majority stakeholder then issued a compulsory acquisition offer, raising its participation to 95.82%. Weatherford International Group operates in almost 100 countries, more than half of its turn-over is registered through its activities outside the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adinan77 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to promote a wine guide essay to a guideline

Per the instructions on WP:GUIDE, I propose that the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide be promoted from essay to guideline, with WP:CORP as its parent.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a wine guide#Proposal to promote from essay to guideline. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

THRI is a Florida not-for-profit organization that promotes basic human rights. T.H.R.I. stands for The Human Rights Initiative. The corporation exists to provide homeless men, women, and children with housing, food and clothing, education, and health care. The organization's official website is www.TakingBackTheCity.org. Taking Back the City was chosen to allude to notion of re-capturing the city and restoring its' people. T.H.R.I.'s mission is to radically transform the city—as well as the surrounding area—by providing direct aid to homeless members of the community. T.H.R.I., Inc. was co-founded by Jonathon Ballard and Ryan Ross to end world poverty, beginning with the state of Florida.

Board of Directors

C.E.O._Jonathon M. Ballard

Director of Operations_Ryan J. Ross
Secretary_Stephanie Ross