Talk:NSF International

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Write Ed (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Untitled

This reads somehow like a commercial. Can someone add substance to it? There are lots of open questions, such as: who recognises the standards developed by NSF International? How is the governance of NSF International structured (membership, board of directors)? phom 2007-05-05.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU 17:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Removed Advert added in 2007 for the now mature and unbiased article. sckirklan (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added some board of directors stuff .Seems hard to come by recent information. If anyone has further info please post. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.252.165 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The board of directors info is outdated and inaccurate. Because that info is no longer available on NSF's public website and cannot be verified, I would like to suggest the board section be removed at this point.Ierlewine (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

NSF International is clearly notable, with literally thousands of references in RS sources [1][2][3]. I'm astounded that someone could think otherwise, though I suppose it wouldn't be WP:AGF to onder about their motives. :-/ --Insider201283 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a single independent reference cited in the article to demonstrate notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through some of those searches you cited and I didn't find anything more than passing mention of NSF in most, several of the sources are self-published, and many are not WP:RS. How about you put forth a few specific exmaples that demonstrate that this complies with WP:NOT and I'll remove the tag. I'm on the fence about whether this should be nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the tag does not state as fact that the subject is non-notable; merely that the article lacks reliable, secondary sources that would demonstrate notability, and it provides an editorial suggestion that such sources should be added. So there's no need for innuendo about motives (and cf. WP:POT) -- just use proper sources when you write an article and then it won't get a WP:NOT tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself must document notability through citation of independent and reliable sources. It is not enough to make claims of notability on the talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article itself does not need to document notability in order to determine notability. Obviously notability should be obvious in a well written and sourced article, which this one is not. Notability is determined if the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As ImperfectlyInformed noted - "questioning the notability of NSF makes Wikipedia look silly". Not only wikipedia I must say. There is already a tag noting the need to add sources. How about you spend some time finding sources and improving the article? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the en.wikipedia.org gets more quality driven! I like it.--Symposiarch (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NSF International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article written like an advertisement

This article has likely been written or edited by someone with connections to the subject as it contains laudatory and flowery language. The article should be rewritten with a more neutral tone. morsontologica (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd editing

The article is almost entirely sourced to NSF itself, which is not an ideal state of an article, and prevents an outside perspective from being given about the organization. Notably, three editors who have added a good amount of content to the article are all accounts that were created solely to edit NSF and related organizations' articles: @Write Ed, @Info NSF, and @Knichols789 -- see their contributions. Write Ed has described the company at the Teahouse as "my company". Info NSF sounds like someone who works there. Knichols789 appears to have edited Wikipedia before (added an infobox on the first edit) and made an account just for this, and so is not necessarily associated with the company. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it, most of the article is unsourced or not supported by the sources it cites. I've removed most of the unsourced content. The remainder still sounds promotional by virtue of being essentially a promotional-ish history section plus a list of services offered. The article really needs some information that is not from NSF and is from reliable secondary sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio in history

The old history paragraph had almost exactly the same wording as the dietary supplements paper that I have used to cite my rewritten version, which says the same thing in different words. I suspect both were taken from some company source. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]