Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
David Monniaux wrote:
But there's no reason we should have an article on my neighbouring highschool, unless we also want articles on every company or organization...
A reasonable criterion for companies would be the listing of its shares on an important stock exchange.
That would be true if only companies that are traded on stock exchanges are notable.
I said "a" reasonable criterion, not "the" reasonable criterion. It would be one of possibly several criteria that could serve independently to justify an article.
That is a fallacy in its own right.
I see no logical fallacy in such a criterion.
When only one criterion is produced without any others, it is not self evident how your proposed criterion would work. If you consider that I misinterpreted what you said, than by giving your rationale, you apparently do agree that it is a fallacy to consider the listing on a stock to be the justification for an article. Some companies that failed miserably are notable because of what they stood for.
It's hard to know how much we really disagree, if at all. My criterion was a sufficient rather than a necessary one. To be precise I consider current listing on a major stock exchange to be sufficient notability justification for having an article. It is not a necessary condition because other qualifying conditions are possible for accomplishing this. Your example of a failed company is an excellent one of someplace where another criterion would apply.
Ec