Option 1:Such literature is not always WP:SPS, even if the author and publisher are within the same org, if the org employs a sufficient review process, and/or the org has a well established reputation.
Option 2:Such literature is always WP:SPS, if the author and publisher are within the same org, and cannot normally be used in sourcing for biography of living people (BLP) unless a non-SPS source makes note of any claim.
The essay, WP:IDSPS, remains a clear point of contention and confusion among all. This RFC exists to see current community consensus and practice, possibly update examples of SPS and non SPS in that section, and be a source to point to in future arguments.
Issues such as whether a source is reliable, independent, due or primary are distinct from whether it's self-published and may still be brought up for any sourcing. [3]
regardless, the result of this RFC has significant implications for WP:BLPSPS. Depending on result, you could no longer disqualify GLAAD/SEGM/etc. with WP:BLPSPS if you argue the source is not automatically WP:SPS.
An organization might have both non-self-published and self-published content (e.g., a NYT article vs. comments on that article, a government report vs. a government hearing transcript), so in determining whether a source is or isn't self-published, people should focus on the specific source and not the organization. [4]
Some sources are written by political parties, think-tanks, or other organizations with a clear agenda. Whether these sources are self-published depends on whether the organization has done independent editorial review on the source, in the same manner a WP:NEWSORG would fact-check an article before publication. Even if it has, assume material put out by an advocacy organization is WP:BIASED and attribute it.
