Just so we're clear, unless otherwise indicated by you above, you agree that the indicated refs are: a) verifiable; b) non-trivial/incidental; c) reliable; and d) independent secondary sources?

Also, do you agree that:

1. in addition to those indicia we are to consider notable and demonstrable effects on education?
2. if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability?
3. evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability?
4. trivial coverage for these purposes means coverage such as (for example) newspaper articles that simply report Institute meeting times or extended hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions to the Institute in directories?
5. Institutes are usually notable if they the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and information about the Institute and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources?
6. Institutes activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the Institute's local area.
7. the Institute's major achievements, or other factors specific to the Institute, may be considered?

--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To the best of my knowledge, I have classified all the sources cited in the article, or under discussion on article talk. Therefore whether any other refs are "a) verifiable; b) non-trivial/incidental; c) reliable; and d) independent secondary sources" is indeterminate.

1. Your wording is rather idiosyncratic, but I will try to respond. Where a reliable independent source states that a topic is the sole or main cause of a "notable and demonstrable effects on education" I would agree that it adds notability. Where, as is the case with The Edge of Reason?, it is only one of an indeterminately long list of causes, it does little to add notability. "...subject in major universities, degrees offered, plus research centres such as the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge. An important consequence has been the complete reassessment of historical literature on the relationship between science and religion."
2. (i) the sources should be "intellectually independent" (see WP:BIO), which leaves out simple repeats of the fact that Denis Alexander is the director of the FI. (ii) At least some of the reliable independent coverage should rise above the level of the "trivial" (let alone "plainly trivial").
3. The level of notability is commensurate with the level of "attention" -- with bare mention, in giving "attention" to related topics, yielding no notability at all.
4. I would agree to those examples, but would also list simply mentioning the affiliation of an activity or person with the FI to be examples of "trivial coverage".
5. Leaving the 'inherent notability' aspect of this question aside for the moment (like many others I value coverage far higher than inherent notability), it would depend on the substance of this national/international scale. If it has dedicated offices in multiple locations it is far more likely to have notability than if it just has a widespread membership (quite easy to achieve in the internet age) or even 'branches' run from members' homes or university offices. Coverage still needs to meet WP:ORG.
6. The "verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the Institute's local area" would still need to be non-trivial and meet WP:ORG.
7. These "achievements" would have to be covered by reliable third parties (which takes us back to WP:ORG), and should be achievements of the FI itself, not individual members, affiliated organisations or "commissioned" parties.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just on #7, how do you differentiate the achievements of a research or educational organization from the related activities of its members? It's the members who carry out the activities. They normally have the same goals, purposes, and products. The material the write for the organization is both their intellectual responsibility, and that of the organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Achievements" that occured either before members joined (remembering that the FI was only founded in 2006) or in fields unrelated to the relationship between science and religion would of course be inapplicable. Beyond that it would probably not be a binary (all or nothing) function so much as a function of the degree of credit the third party sources assign to the FI for the achievement. It should also be remembered that the members will quite likely to also be members of university departments and/or other research organisations. Giving all of them full credit for a given achievement would seem to be inflationary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]