Talk:Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Removal of maintenance tags

I think those tags should be removed for the following reasons:

1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject: perhaps the original author did back in 2017, but more people have worked on this article since that time and the new text doesn't raise that suspicion.

2) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral: the website of the consortium was removed and references listed included universities and a very top academic journal like 'Small Business Economics'. I am sure there the web has countless sites listing the use of GEM data, but it becomes a matter of using the references appropriately. Perhaps a new a section should be created listing all the major academic studies using GEM data...

3) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations: I think that GEM numbers clearly show the ongoing relevance of this project on a global scale (25 years of history, 115 countries participating, collaboration with over 500 specialists in entrepreneurship research, the involvement of some 300+ academic and research institutions, the support from more than 200 funding institutions, and recurring use of the data by the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank and the OECD).

~~~~ Mobinow (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's possible #1 is not needed, although it's not just the original author with a COI, there has been a few over the years. I stil think the other two issues have not been fully addressed. If you have sources that are not associated with this organization that discuss it, please offer them. The mere use of the data of this organization by notable agencies/organizations would not establish notability without discussion as to the significance or influence of that data use and by extension the organization. Notability is not inherited by association.

Is there any particular source of your interest in the removal of these tags? 331dot (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I just feel they are wrongly placed. If notable agencies choose to use GEM to make their arguments, that’s because the data itself (and the organization behind it) is reputable and widely regarded as the best choice available. There are countless references on the web, and I just added another 6 that include Forbes and The Times. My contribution to this page is done. Cheers Mobinow (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)