Talk:Belnap Family Organization

Notability
How does this orginization in any way meet wp:N, particularly wp:ORG? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been no realistic attempt to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements (specificly Notability of organizations and companies) for 6+ months. It appears that may be impossible, as there is no significant coverage by independent third parties which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. One example of the difficulty is evident when doing a Google search on "Belnap Family Organization"; there isn't a single usable source. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also please note that "wp:Other stuff exists" type arguments are not considered helpful. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Orginization" is spelled "organization." Independent third party sources DO exist and will be referenced in due course. But then, oh, yes, only Google contains ALL worthwhile knowledge. Why, if something doesn't show up in Google then it doesn't exist, no? :) Read The Filter Bubble to disabuse such specious reasoning.  The facts remain:  the BFO is one of the oldest and largest family associations in the United States; its activities over the years have received regional and national attention. As noted under Notability (organizations and companies):

"Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

"Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."

"Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, [etc.]"

"Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. Additional considerations are: . . . Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratavarious1 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Misspellings (or even grammar/typographical issues) in this informal conversation do not impact the core messages being conveyed, and it adds no value to point them out; all you did was increase the perceived hostility found in your last post, which was counterproductive.
 * 2. I don't buy into conspiracy theories; honestly I really don't think that Google cares enough about the BFO to expend the resources needed to attempt to suppress information about it.
 * 3. I didn't say that Google was a repository of all knowledge, I merely used it an example (as stated). I'm old enough that I learned to type on a typewriter, and I know the value of "dead tree" resources that Google has not (yet) indexed.
 * 4. I like research, and I personally spent several hours looking for anything I can use to legitimately support the notability of BFO & found nothing:
 * a. In addition to the Google search mention above, I scoured the Deseret News archives, thinking that I might find something, but all I found were passing mentions (such as BFO being involved with a pioneer era recreation event)
 * b. I did searches in BYU Studies, Dialog, Sunstone, and lds.org (which should also have been low hanging fruit) and found nothing usable.
 * c. I did the same with Google News, Google Book & Google Scholar, with the same results.
 * d. Based on this experience, I seemed to be well passed any reasonable probability of finding something usable, and yes I concluded that this was very likely because there was nothing to find. Is it possible I was wrong? Of course! But just saying "your wrong" without then following up with some demonstrative proof does not help fix the issues with the article.
 * 5. You still haven't provided a single verifiable, independent, reliable source that establishes notability since you created the article 8 months ago. "Sources are coming" is not an useful argument, it's an threadbare excuse. If BFO has received published regional and national attention, lets document it in the article and be done with it!
 * 6. If you need help in how to format those references, just give me something (anything) useable to work with on this talk page & I'll fix them right up; I'm fairly good with the citation templates.
 * 7. I have no "beef" with you, or the BFO & I like rescuing articles (see Nauvoo Brass Band as an example), so please knock off the hostility, and lets just get this article right. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)