There seems to be some disagreement on whether airports fall under NORG. My opinion is that, like railway stations, they do not since they are transport hubs. Others have said that since they are often run by companies that they do. So are they organisations or not? Always, never, sometimes, or just never been clarified in guidelines? SpinningSpark16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
No they don't fall under NORG in my opinion as they are transport infrastructure. The airport may be run by an organisation but the airport itself is not an organisation, it is a facility. NemesisAT (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. They also get a little extra boost from being geographic features/ places. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As there is confusion on this point, I suggest that something is added to the guideline defining its scope. This thread was prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shingletown Airport where the argument was made that NORG applied, but is now closed without establishing that principle. Possible wording,
This guideline does not apply to transport infrastructure such as railway lines and stations, airports, and toll roads, even when the company running the installation has that task as its single purpose. Other notability guidelines such as GNG continue to apply.
It's probably better to put a note with the the SNG that (typically) does apply (ngeo) rather than a note at one of the many SNG's that typically don't apply. It should probably be specifically / narrowly written because there are other cases which IMO can go either way (e.g. buildings, schools) where meeting ncorp may need to be required. For example, a huge prominent old school facility with a non-notable organization running it might go in under ngeo primarily as a facility, but without having that facility an article focused on the org might need to be required to meet ncorp. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean an exclusion, I meant an inclusion comment at ngeo, but I didn't think it through any further than that. I'll noodle on it some more. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I took a close look. My idea is too and messy big to tackle. Plus I failed to sufficiently take into account the unique strictness of ncorp. Scratch my idea, I support yours. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Allegations of crime?
The link in "Illegal conduct" goes to an article about people. Could somebody please add in this article or that one when the company is notable if it (rather than a particular employee) is alleged to be connected with a crime. Or is it up to editors to just use their judgement depending on the coverage? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
In other contexts, like WP:BIO1E, we've tended to not consider something notable if its only claim to notability is a single notable event. I'd personally recommend the same approach here: write about the event, and if necessary and appropriate, redirect the pages of the otherwise not notable companies and people to that. FalconK (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The last time I can find we had a chat about whether analyst reports can be used to establish notability was in 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_3#Analyst_reports. I suspect things might have changed a touch since then, and I'd like to amend the guideline to clarify that there are two different types of analyst reports: in-depth research on the company in question, and "just the numbers, please" with maybe a little generative text or a single sentence by written by a human if you're lucky. Rating services, for example, will write "analyst reports" on every stock with a ticker symbol and even some pink sheets, but most consist of just technical indicators (support and resistance kind of stuff; option greeks; analysis of fundamentals from financial reports) and are really strictly ephemera.
The notability guideline describes that "... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
I'd love to change it to something more like "... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, academic case studies, or analyst reports that provide considerable depth on the company. However, material that reports only stock prices, numerical information used to predict stock prices, financials, equity or debt transactions, or similar ephemera does not establish notability." Thoughts? FalconK (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. On a purely wordsmithing level the structure of the second sentence bothers me, and I think it might be good to use the passive voice to bring the subject and verb closer together: "However, notability is not established by" etc. Or keep the active voice and use a two-sentence structure ("But X does not establish notability. Examples of X include" etc.) And maybe add something like "because such coverage is not sufficiently significant" at the end? (I'm borrowing "significant" from the nutshell, although that doesn't quite seem like the right word.) -- Visviva (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps this?
"... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, academic case studies, or analyst reports that provide considerable depth on the company. However, notability is not established by sources that do not discuss the company beyond financial terms. For example, material that reports only stock prices, numerical information used to predict stock prices, financials, equity or debt transactions, or similar ephemera is not significant coverage, because it does not provide sufficient detail to support an article about the company." FalconK (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Below is a book that explains what analyst reports are.
Brokerages employ scores of analysts. Each typically covers a specific industry such as semiconductor equipment or restaurants. Analysts write research reports on their industry as a whole, and on specific companies within the industry. The analysts devise sales and earnings forecasts, buy, hold, or sell recommendations, and target prices for companies they follow. They update their forecasts and recommendations after each company's quarterly report is released and at other times as events warrants. Sell-side analysts ratings and reports are widely distributed, and third parties such as First Call, Zacks Research, and Multex tabulate their ratings and estimates and publish them in the form of analysts' consensus ratings and forecasts.
...
All of the ratings and forecasts that we hear about or see compiled, come from sell-side analysts. Analysts publish an in-depth report describing the business model, industry, and competitive situation when they begin coverage of a new company. After that, most analysts' reports are short updates, typically responding to an earnings report or other news affecting the company's outlook. Each report or update includes the analysts' current buy/sell recommendation (rating), as well as earnings forecasts for upcoming quarters and for the current and next fiscal years. The report also provides background information justifying changes in the ratings or forecasts.
Analyst reports are high quality sources that provide considerable depth about the company so I don't see a need to modify the guideline to add the "that provide considerable depth on the company" qualifier after "analyst reports". "Considerable depth" is a much higher requirement than the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria so would be inconsistent with the rest of the guideline.
This discussion was started shortly after we discussed analyst reports in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medallia. How would this wording change affect the ability to use the 18 analyst reports I listed in the AfD to establish notability? I oppose any change that would make it harder to use those sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
My overarching intention here is to work on drawing the line for where a company becomes notable more clearly in general, preferably so that we have less articles that don't (and will never) have more content than the company's financial history. So I oppose the use of reports that include only the fully digested results of the analysts' work (i.e., the ratings themselves, price forecasts, etc.). I'd also tend to oppose the inclusion of information that reflects only the machinery of arbitrage, because that information is ephemeral and void of interest outside the finance industry. So for example an analyst report that explains the stock price fell or rose due to things like benchmark rate changes, I don't think helps us establish notability. One that reports only that the company exists, has assets, and engages in business, I think is covered adequately by WP:EXISTS. On the other hand, one that explains solid background information about the way the company is interacting with the social context in which it exists would be valuable in establishing notability.
I haven't actually finished looking through the sources you provided in that one AfD (and a lot are paywalled, so it's difficult). But this isn't about that specifically; you just reminded me to raise this long-standing issue. It's about the articles that begin and end with the company's existence and financials. FalconK (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The sources that I was able to access from your table of analyst reports don't show a ton of promise. They're real tough to access without some kind of institutional access, but I do have a library I can use for some. An outline of one (Craig Hallum, 26 July 2021, on MDLA):
Medallia entered into an agreement to be bought by private equity
Numbers, multiples, dates, and votes
We expected this, and we think the deal will go through and nobody else will bid higher
We think you should hold this stock at a particular price
Investment in the company is exposed to some risks:
Medallia's target market is new and dynamic and the company will suffer if its predictions about the way that market develops fail
The company has lost money and needs to raise its profits to maintain its stock price
As a technology company it's going to have to innovate
The acquisition isn't yet completely final and its failure would depress the stock
A non-standard income statement from FY 2018-2023 (quarterly from FY20, projected quarterly from FY 2021 Q2)
A page of boilerplate and Craig Hallum's previous ratings and price targets
As I mentioned in the AfD in question, I don't think this kind of material helps us much. It doesn't help us write the article, because chronologies of routine business transactions are not topical. It doesn't help us establish notability either, because it's routine coverage that exists only because the company's stock is traded and people want to determine the correct price. So while some of the other sources you've cited are likely OK, it seems very clear to me that sources like the Craig Hallum report don't establish notability.
Others have differentiated between an analyst report, like Gartner (unfortunately I have no way to get Gartner reports; ymmv), and an analyst rating such as this. I'm inclined to agree with them; if there's an independent analyst report (not one the company commissioned or could influence, and that uses sources outside the company), that'd go to notability, but that's the bar to meet. I'd really love to hear from some other editors here. FalconK (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I consider the Craig Hallum source to be an analyst report since it is a report written by an analyst about how the company is doing at a specific point in time (in this case, when it was being considered for an acquisition by private equity). The "We think you should hold this stock at a particular price" and "Investment in the company is exposed to some risks" sections of the Craig Hallum analyst report likely meet WP:CORPDEPTH through providing an analysis of the company's performance and what the company's weaknesses and risks are at that point in time. It is common for analyst reports to include "investment rationale" and "risks" sections. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as written because of many wording issues. "considerable depth on the company" might apply to other independent sources in this passage, but why would analyst reports have any other "considerable depth on the company" outside of limited information contained in reports? "Ephemera" doesn't describe anything in any meaningful way other than suggesting the things are "bad". If you want to say "data only lists", then fine, but "ephemera" is just meaningless tripe. Also, sources containing financials, equity or debt transactions could also contain other "in depth" information as well, but I fear something like this will be interpreted as meaning that a source isn't allowed because those specific things have been mentioned being described as "ephemera". Huggums537 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Would it be alright if we just changed the example a little? To say that something is ephemera is not to say it's "bad"; it's only to describe things that don't have lasting importance when writing an article about the company. For example, we generally would avoid writing in an article about Ford Motor Company that an analyst in June 2010 found that sales were up 13% y/y which missed the consensus estimate. But this was the complete substance of an analyst report by JPMorgan at that time. Ford is obviously notable, but it's notable for (among other reasons) the fact that when it opens or closes a plant, national news is interested; the prosperity of entire cities hangs in the balance; policymakers might expend effort to influence just this particular decision. That's what I'm trying to draw a line about. It's notable because its doings are front page news on a paper of general circulation, not because an analyst decided to initiate coverage and tell the market about the factors that influence its stock price. Perhaps this:
"... sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, academic case studies, or analyst reports that provide considerable depth on the company. However, notability is not established by sources that do not discuss the company beyond financial terms. For example, notability is not established by reports that consist only of financial analysis of the company, projections, and identification of current pressures on the stock price, because these do not provide sufficient detail to support an article about the company." FalconK (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Outdated and inaccurate information on Omeros Corp.
The current Wikipedia page presents outdated and inaccurate information which is several years old with regard to number of employees as well as revenue. Revenue for June 2022 is -30.85 million and not 73.8 million shown for 2020. This should be updated to reflect current numbers and not present a misleading picture. 50.35.117.235 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I've started a new Wikipedia:Notability (councils) essay. Basically countries and states will generally have separate articles anyway as notable, district councils will generally be combined with the district per WP:NOPAGE (even if notable) and municipalities generally don't have separate articles unless they are notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The Inprela Communications piece is promotional garbage and should not influence policy.
Here's something that has bothered me for quite some time, which I am just now getting around to mentioning. I thought I brought it up the last time I was here, but apparently not.
Anyway, as I've mentioned, I've seen multiple attempts at AfD in the past year or so to dismiss news coverage by trade publications on sight, with a broad brush, cited to this page. Having worked in journalism (unlike some people making those claims), I know that while article subjects who buy or attempt to buy coverage do exist, the practice is nowhere near as widespread or undisclosed as is sometimes speculated on Wikipedia. There is a widespread assumption that just because a company wants to be promoted, it is guaranteed to succeed, and that its desire to be advertised (which literally every company has) is enough to negate any legitimate, even unflattering, news coverage of them. So awhile back I took a look at the sourcing for this speculation and was, to say the least, unimpressed.
The sole citation for this claim is an article by Inprela Communications. Inprela Communications is a PR firm that sells "B2B storytelling and content strategy" consulting. In other words, their business model is to convince people to pay them to place articles. They have a vested interest in making this practice seem more widespread, more legitimized in more prestigious publications, and more likely to get results than it actually is, in order to better sell potential clients on their services. Anything they publish on the subject should be viewed as unreliable.
Luckily, in this case we don't have to speculate on Inprela's motivations. The article is openly promotional and exists to sell their service: "This is where outside agencies, like Inprela, can take the reins." (It's also more arguing against trying to target trade publications, saying it's pointless.) This would be laughed out of the project if it were used as a citation in an article; for the same reasons, we should not be giving it any traction whatsoever in policy.
For a more accurate view of the situation, this is an excellent, scholarly overview of how trade publications operate, the conflicts therein, the respective roles, training, and influence of advertising vs. editorial/journalistic departments. It cites academic work and working journalists, not PR firms. (pertinent info starts around page 125 or so; a lot of it is paywalled).
This piece by former The Atlantic editor Alexis Madrigal is also pretty accurate to my knowledge; it argues that while the pull of advertising/sales departments in trade publications is much stronger, and that the ethical lines have become blurry, that individual editorial departments and journalists are ultimately the ones making ethical calls, and how successful they are needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sounds like we shouldn't use 2011-era Locks and Security Monthly or Michael Arrington though! Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to add this: I did some digging as to how this got into the article in the first place; this is the closest I found, and the respective arguments for and against are as follows (bolding mine). One of them says exactly what I did; the other cites PR firms and organizations to argue against citing PR firms and organizations, which is some impressive circularity:
"The website for a public relations company, on a page whose apparent purpose is to explain why you need to hire them, is really not reliable for anything except the fact that the PR firm wants your money – and it doesn't actually say that trade rags behave any differently than any other media."
"As far as sources go, I don't even think we need sources here. But would this be better? (link to a book by the American Marketing Association, dubiously citing PR firm The Dilenschneider Group as evidence of its claim, that didn't end up being added) Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate some input from editors familiar with our notability policy regarding for-profit businesses at this discussion. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
I keep seeing different interpretations of this bit. The language uses terms like "national" and "regional", but individual cities like Beijing, Tokyo, London, and New York City have "audiences" larger than most countries. According to this part of the guideline, it seems that if a company in a tiny country gets coverage in the national newspapers it would be considered notable (at least as far as this part goes), but that a company which gets coverage in the major papers serving a metropolitan area (one which is orders of magnitude larger than the tiny country) would not be notable in terms of audience, despite having a larger audience.
It seems to me that this guideline is intended to get away from media in a small town/city, which report on all the goings-on in that town, contributing to notability through coverage that's only relevant to a small number of people. Importantly, that can be true about a "region", too. Just because a paper covers a large geographic area doesn't mean it's covering a large audience, yet we consider "regional" good enough. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Even large cities have "local" papers. There's a difference between being covered in the New York Times and being covered in the Brooklyn Eagle. BD2412T16:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll talk about another example. Portland Mercury is predominantly funded by advertisement revenue from local businesses that put ads in there. The contents focuses significantly on local events; and often talk in depth about events, because their target audience is people looking for events to go to and things to do locally and it does a fine job for those things. However, those coverage have little meaning in establishing enduring notability of the event, event host, the artist, or the venue at which the vent is held. Understandably, more hyper-local the source is, the greater the depth of coverage they can afford on local event. When a paper, such as Los Angeles Times intended for broad audience decides to cover something local in great depth, now that's an indication of general notability. Coverage in this local weeklies isn't pivotal to global notability of some little businesses/groups/organizations. Articles about organizations/companies/people are particularly susceptible to being created for promotional purposes and this is why WP:NCORP was established. Graywalls (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Illegal conduct
WP:ILLCON says It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. However, CRIME is part of WP:BIO and hence explicitly applies only to people, not organisations. I agree that an organisations illegal or negligent activities may warrant an article but this needs rewording. I feel replacing "under different guidelines" with "under general notability" will get the job done. Replacing "illegal conduct" with "illegal, negligent, or immoral conduct" would also be an improvement. A company's anti-social activities can become notable without actually being illegal. SpinningSpark13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the exception of the "illegal" wording. Adding "negligent, or immoral conduct" would cause too much debate in an AfD as both are subjective. Illegal is pretty straight forward when a company is found guilty. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I get it - basically why is a guideline for companies/organizations (NCORP) referring to a guideline for people (BIO). I think it is possible to interpret "victim" and "perpetrator" as a company/organization and understand how to apply the criteria to a non-person. But it would be preferable if it was stated plainly in relation to non-persons to avoid arguments over interpretation. HighKing++ 11:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Opinions on WP:NSCHOOL
We should consider all universities are notable as long as they can provide degrees (Associate degrees at lowest). In Chinese Wikipedia all universities are notable. Besides, the total number of universities around the world is very limited. John Smith Ri (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a thought
After recently reading several explanations of WP:CORP at various help and talk pages, I've come up with a thought, it may be brilliant, ordinary, or trash (you decide), so here it is:
"If the only evidence of a company's existence comes from sources that are paid to care about its existence, the company is not notable."
I submit, for your consideration, that the phrase "sources that are paid to care" is a succinct catch-all description of primary sources, a concept which so many new editors seem to struggle with. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
AFD Discussion touching on a set of articles falling within WP:CORP (airline destination lists)
Hi Horse Eye's Back, WP:CORP is a "page ... to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service" (my emphasis). An article giving an exhaustive listing of all the air-transport services of a commercial organisation is manifestly within the scope of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Flights are services provided by companies, not infrastructure. They are ephemeral, not constructed. Airports are exempt from WP:CORP, but business done at airports is not (otherwise specialist shops and restaurants that operate at airports would be exempt, which cannot be logical). Exempting airlines from WP:CORP could make no sense at all, but if airlines are within WP:CORP but their flights are not, you would end up with the bizarre situation where the airline is not notable under WP:CORP, but a complete listing of every single service they offer taken directly from their website is notable. The only logical position is that lists of airline flights (which can be arranged by an airline at the drop of a hat, require no construction, and are therefore not "infrastructure" in any meaningful way) and the companies that provided them are governed by the same notability standard. FOARP (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, but this is not a list of flights. Its a list of destination airports. A list of flights would be much longer in many cases. "but a complete listing of every single service they offer taken directly from their website is notable." How? GNG etc would still apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Setting aside that many of these articles are only cited to the airline, we'd be opening the door to having complete articles about all the destinations serviced by an airline based on industry press that is blatantly not independent of the airlines. Saying "destinations not flights" is a distinction without a difference, since a listing of destinations tells you their network and ultimately where they fly between. Applying WP:CORP to airlines but not to lists of destinations they service means that an airline will not have an article but a list of destinations of that airlines will get an article, which is simply absurd.
All of which is missing the point that a list of destinations serviced does not describe any infrastructure at all - services to a destination can be scheduled and cancelled at the drop of a hat - so the infrastructure exception simply doesn't apply here. It applies to airports, not airlines. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It would still require significant coverage from independent reliable sources, can you point me to a case where if so applied the airline will not have an article but a list of destinations of that airlines will get an article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Nearly every airline and its destinations is covered in industry press. If industry press is allowed to support notability for destinations but not the airline (which would be the case if WP:ORGIND were applied to the airline but not to the destinations), you'd end up with that situation. That we do not have this situation occurring at present proves my point - WP:CORP applies equally to both, if the airline fails it, so does its destinations. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Either you can point me to real world examples or you can't, either you can show that this problem exists or you can't. For what's its worth I don't see NCORP shifting the needle in any of those discussions if applied. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking for: do you want an example of an airline that was deleted but the corresponding destinations list was kept? But my point is that this is what does NOT happen. Do you want an example of where both the airline article and the destinations were deleted? This will take some digging on AFD. Or do you want me to find an airline article that is AFD-worthy but not yet deleted? I think I could with some digging but I’m not sure what this would prove. You may be right that WP:NOT is more decisive in this case, but the guide that is explicitly directed to articles about company-services should also have some persuasive force. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
PS - Horse Eye's Back, it occurred to me that you might be looking for an example of an airline destination list article that had been deleted for failing WP:CORP, in which case, here's one. Now, it's a small and recent AFD so you might not find it very persuasive, but I feel pretty confident about the distinction between infrastructure (e.g., train-lines, train-stations, bus-routes with bus-stops/shelters, airports - the key is physical infrastructure) and business-services (e.g., taxi-services, coach-services, airline-services - all of which can be changed at the drop of a hat). That these articles are about business-services and not infrastructure is clear from the fact that the coverage of each article begins/ends with the company beginning/ending the service, despite the fact that other people will be flying to those destinations along the same routes.
There's also a semi-legalistic reading which I know is not necessarily how Wikipedia works but as a lawyer of sorts I can't avoid: this is an exception to a general rule and as such should be read narrowly since many businesses operate "transport infrastructure" to some extent (e.g., supermarkets operate networks of delivery trucks and depots). A broad reading of the infrastructure exemption could negate WP:CORP across nearly its entire scope, which cannot be the intent of the guide. Therefore we should prefer a narrow reading. Where the guide says say "This guideline does not apply to transport infrastructure such as railway lines and stations, airports, and toll roads, even when the company running the installation has that task as its single purpose" (my emphasis) it really does mean this only to apply to things that are physical installations, and not services.
Yeah, I know I should just drop the stick at this point, but I though this an important point to make. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you trying to get that close challenged? Nobody but the OP (you) brings up NCORP so @TadejM: looks to have gone a bit supervoty in their rationale. The delete comments are "Delete, apart from the fact that the company went bankrupt in 2019, this list is only a list of destinations at a specific time. Not much to merge to the parent article, either." "Delete - Per WP:NOTTRAVEL" "Delete: What about List of Lufthansa destinations, List of United Airlines destinations, List of Air Canada destinations, and List of Singapore Airlines destinations? They're part of Star Alliance. They're affected by WP:NOTTRAVEL." this was clearly deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL not NCORP mistaken summary by closer notwithstanding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, both the guidelines apply. I agree with the view that NCORP only makes an exemption for physical infrastructure. The main article should include a list of destinations but this list should be supported by independent reliable sources demonstrating its significance and not just be an ephemeral list of destinations immediately before the company ceased operating (as was pointed out by Tone). --TadejMmy talk18:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The list should be supported by independent reliable sources demonstrating its significance and not just be an ephemeral list of destinations immediately before the company ceased operating regardless of whether or not NCORP applies. You're describing GNG, not the separate standards of SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge - I think a list of cities an airline serves would best be placed within the context of the main article on the airline, and not as a separate stand alone article. This would resolve the issue of “list notability” (assuming the airline is notable… listing the cities it serves is worth noting in that article). I would also shift from a space wasting chart format to something much simpler - a bullet pointed list of cities. This would be much easier to keep updated should a city be added or removed from such service. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete, put text type summary in the airline article IMO these should be deleted, primarily under wp:NOT but also under wp:ncorp. This is basically a list of products/ product catalog for the airline, albeit missing details like flight times. Some general summary type text of where they operate would be good for the respective airline article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Definition of "Source" for the purposes of establishing notability - does it mean we can aggregate multiple articles from the same "source"
A good question has popped up a couple of times recently at AfD. On the one hand, when I'm examining sources to see if they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I've looked at each individual article. On the other hand, some editors are suggesting that articles by the same publisher or journalist can be aggregated together and form one super-article or source. WP:SOURCEDEF's definition of "source" captures three elements - the piece of work itself (singular), the creator and the publisher. I believe you cannot aggregate individual documents/articles/whatever and treat as a single document. Thoughts? HighKing++ 10:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
By aggregating sources do you mean aggregating non-significant coverage until they somehow count as significant coverage or do you mean using multiple articles with significant coverage from the same source to establish notability? That first one is a hard no but the second can be legitimate in certain circumstances, especially in the natural sciences where you may only have publications about an obscure species from the same journal and/or team of researchers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree that the question is unclear. I think that Horse Eye's Back noted the two likely possibilities and that they are two very different things. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
To clarify (hopefully). I raised this in the AfD on a national/international motor vehicle distributor. The business has continuing coverage on a website but each individual article is fairly brief and based around company news. There's hardly any analysis/investigative journalism. Under WP:CORPDEPTH there's a section on Examples of significant coverage one of which is ongoing media coverage. This suggested to me that ongoing coverage of the business from the same publisher over perhaps many years is significant of itself and therefore could be counted as one of the multiple sources required to achieve notability. Rupples (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If the ongoing coverage consists of repackaging company press releases or is shaped by their public relations efforts, then it is not independent coverage and is of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If I'm understanding the question correctly, my interpretation of NCORP is that 1) minimal coverage across multiple citations that would be considered significant in aggregate does not contribute to notability (which is an extra provision, distinct from normal GNG assessment where this assessment of coverage across sources is allowed) and 2) NCORP-satisfying citations should come from multiple distinct publishers/authors. HEB's example above seems to forget that we're talking about NCORP specifically, so carveouts for obscure species and the like aren't relevant. signed, Rosguilltalk22:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think normal GNG assessment where this assessment of coverage across sources is allowed is true. Otherwise we wouldn't have a specific carveout in NBASIC that permits this for some biographies. In my experience NCORP isn't really different from GNG other than that it applies greater scrutiny to source independence (by excluding purely local coverage and assuming PR). JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no carveout for obscure species. It seems entirely relevant, if we have four in-depth articles about the Zambian Corn Company from the "Journal of African Dryland Agriculture" but no other significant coverage in reliable sources (because of course none of Zambia's papers are WP:RS) the situation is the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, yes you've done a better job of articulating the question and also that it is GNG/NCORP specific too. You've captured the essence of the idea/question - of aggregating multiple citations/articles which, on their own, would fail the criteria for establishing notability. It comes down to the interpretation of the word "source" in SOURCEDEF which says it can be the "creator" and then the use of the word source in other parts of the guidelines - for example WP:SIRS which says "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other". So if an individual source is, for example, the creator, then you might interpret SIRS as saying you evaluate the "creator" and hence you can aggregate all the articles by that creator. HighKing++ 10:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
IMO the answer for a hypothetical ideal case could be "yes" but the answer for all of the real cases it would be "no". The hypothetical ideal case would be multiple coverages from the same NCORP-suitable source which put together adds up to true in-depth coverage as would come from one large in-depth article. I think that that would meet both spoken intent (supply the in-depth type material needed for the article) and the unspoken defacto additional intent (a NCORP-suitable source doing in-depth coverage is an indicator of real world notability) of the guideline. But in reality I don't think that such is going to happen. In reality the individual coverages are going to be a bunch of narrow articles that don't add up to in-depth coverage. Maybe recaps of news releases, who got promoted there, product launches, profit reports etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There is an alternate set of criteria for WP:NBAND; however I believe record labels, recording studios are an organization or a company like any other group such as trade associations, unions, and what not. There are some people who expressed some of those WP:NCORP shouldn't apply to creative groups. While I am not aware of it, is there a broad Wikipedia community consensus from past discussions suggesting WP:MUSIC takes precedence over NCORP if the organization, companies and groups can be broadly categorized into musical category? I started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C/Z_Records and some editors have expressed dissent over the application of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue I've encountered frequently. While there is no doubt that major music labels are corporations, with all the trapping of corporate media attention, there is a long tail of independent music labels that have a significant role to play in music. Sometimes these Indies strike gold and become a cultural phenomenon (e.g. Sub Pop), while others might get such attention posthumously (e.g. Wax Trax! Records). But many others simply do the business year in and year out, only receiving passing mentions ("label x released music by band y," or, "band x signed on to label y") without a lot of independent coverage of their existence. These latter cases are frustrating because they work with and represent many notable bands which, of course, isn't enough to confer notability. I'm not sure what the answer is; it's a difficult dichotomy to be sure. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe WP:INHERITORG is the relevant one here. Dropping names of notable clients or working for notable clients do not make the organization notable simply because they've worked with notable subjects without WP:CORPDEPTH satisfying coverage on the company/organization itself. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
No precedence. In my view, the best outcome would be for an 'OR' situation; as in, a subject can meet GNG, or any SNG, and it is notable. Jack4576 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
There are structurally 3 angles/routes to look at here including two angles to look at NCORP:
One is the usual SNG, which is arguably a way to at least temporarily bypass GNG. The question in this respect would be "is NCORP available for record labels?" I don't think that anyone would be seeking that so IMO this angle is somewhat moot.
The second angle would "does the existence of NCORP preclude using the the WP:music "way in"? Since WP:Music criteria aren't very applicable to labels, this is probably also moot but IMHO my answer under #3 is also applicable.
The third angle is relates to the fact that NCORP toughens the GNG "route in" via tougher sourcing and coverage requirements. IMO the reasoning for this unusual toughness is not usually applicable/intended for record labels and so this unusual toughening should not be applied to record labels. So this basically would (only) mean that the standard GNG route in is available.
I think route #3 is the most likely to succeed. I think it would be difficult-to-impossible to demonstrate that meeting NMUSIC criteria as a label necessarily means that GNG-qualifying coverage will exist. I think it's more reasonable to demonstrate that the PR ecosystem around typical companies and NGOs that necessitates NCORP standards do not also exist for record labels. signed, Rosguilltalk20:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree there are some topic areas where art and culture are intertwined with a company/organization/person such that NCORP is not the most appropriate guideline. Record labels are a great example. I suggest a "crossover" section should be added to NCORP which provides for record labels meeting a historical/artistic/cultural impact which in turn points to NMUSIC for the specifics on how a record label might pass notability criteria. HighKing++ 11:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
NCORP is designed to be a marginally higher bar than GNG or most SNGs because, well, promotion/advertising/spam. Record labels are my thing (at least pre-1970 ones), and outside of crypto and "philanthropic entrepreneurs" I can't think of any topic more prone to promotion/advertising/spam than record labels. Maybe I only feel that way because I deal with them disproportionately. So NCORP often applies to record labels. However, there are times when the record label should be considered on it's historical or cultural merits. This is often indicated when a label has signed or developed a significant number of notable artists (although experience has taught me to watch out for walled gardens.) Others have a significant historical place, even without a large number of "notable artists" (I'm thinking of United Hebrew Disc and Cylinder Company). Others have had a significant impact on a genre of music, or the music of a region. In other words, I think record labels require a bit of case-by-case thinking. The financial/business aspects of a record label clearly fall under NCORP, and if a label has no particular cultural/historical footprint, then it seems reasonable to judge it by this criteria. But in other cases I think HighKing puts it better. Unfortunately NMUSIC gives at best a backwards path to notability on the historical/cultural/artistic end of things. I've tried to fix that more than once in the past. I've failed. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)14:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to that bit in NCORP at WP:ORGSIG that says When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. If a music-related company (e.g. record label) has had an effect on culture/society/etc then it seems appropriate to describe what this means for notability in an appropriate related guideline (e.g. NMUSIC, perhaps by expanding NMUSICOTHER). For architectural firm it might be an addition to the NBUILD section, etc. HighKing++ 14:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If a certain label was credited with significant impact on genre, there would be coverage about it. Notability here is established through noteworthiness brought upon by independent coverage. Surely, a record label that significantly affected a genre as whole would receive coverage not in some local rag sheets or zines, but in broadly circulated media. Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above. A record label is almost always a for profit business. If a label has had a significant impact, then it surely should have substantial coverage in reliable sources that document that impact. MER-C16:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
My post was intended to be a structural observation/analysis of what the question actually is rather than listing proposals. The shorted/condensed version of it is: The question actually is: Is/shall the STANDARD version of GNG "route in" (be) available to record labels, recording studios, art collectives and like? (And "standard" means without the NCORP toughening) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The GNG route is always available, if something passes GNG but fails all of the other notability standards its still notable. The way NCORP is applied in deletion discussion by some zealots is to be polite an "off-label" proscription, its not actually based in policy or guideline so changing them won't change it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be responding to my post as if I didn't have the word "STANDARD" in there in which case you are repeating the obvious as if I didn't know it. IMO the defacto situation is that STANDARD GNG is not available in clear-cut corporation scenarios. I think that it's pretty widely accepted that the tougher sourcing standards of NCORP are used when applying GNG. Hence my two posts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd also add that even GNG has the SNG section which specifically points to NCORP for corporations, so its become a rather tiresome argument about "zealots" that pops up every second week at AfD. For sure, consensus is that companies/organizations must meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:GNG redirects to the GNG section of WP:N, not just to WP:N in general. You seem to tend to make a lot of mistakes when discussing notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) is the crucial part of WP:N which states that no SNG can supersede GNG. I can see why applying NCORP in some cases benefits us in making it easier to remove spam but claims that all corporation articles (and I've seen some very broad definitions of corporation on here) must pass WP:NCORP are incorrect. Garuda3 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Strangely contradictory, so we can use NCORP for some (which you call SPAM) but disregard for anything else? Why bother having any SNGs at all if they're all "superceded" by GNG? It seems to me and others that some editors are OK with SNG's providing additional mechanisms/interpretation for inclusion but baulk at SNG's which provide mechanisms/interpretation for exclusion. HighKing++ 18:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be persistent confusion in one area. For corporations, while arguable, there does seem to be accepted practice of using the tougher sourcing standards of NCorp when applying GNG . I call that a "calibration" of GNG. I don't think that there is anybody saying that a corporation passing GNG also has to pass the SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Given what HighKing just said about "a rather tiresome argument about "zealots" that pops up every second week at AfD" it should be clear that the community does not accept this practice. The community consensus is that "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Which isn't broken and covers 100% of the cases that have been brought up, it isn't broken... It doesn't need wannabe junkyard mechanics "calibrating" it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll bite. Yeah, it is tiresome. Every second week an editor pops up at an NCORP-related AfD and spouts something along the lines of "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG". As said above, NCORP provides clear guidelines and examples of specifically how the principles (which are summarised in GNG) are to be applied. Contrary to those editors' understanding, NCORP doesn't add extra criteria - but it is stricter, especially when it comes to what counts as in-depth/significant coverage and what is mean by "independent" content. HighKing++ 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
GNG and SNG are applied separately, hence WP:N repeatedly saying "GNG or SNG" not "GNG and SNG." If it genuinely happens 20+ times a year maybe take the hint that you're the one causing the problem not those dozens of other editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
So by that logic, if an SNG excludes a topic for a particular subject-specific reason but GNG doesn't, we simply ignore the SNG? Why would we bother with SNGs if that is the case? Also this viewpoint isn't shared with editors who close the AfDs and consensus is for the application of NCORP for organizations/companies. HighKing++ 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in the same way that we "ignore" GNG when a topic passes a SNG but not GNG. Also note that we can delete a topic which passes GNG and/or SNG, you appear to be confusing passing GNG/SNG with being notable and that's just not the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, most SNGs provide additional mechanisms to include a topic. NCORP is stricter on interpretation of GNG. In reality, what this means is that if it fails NCORP, it has also failed GNG. I cannot recall a single instance where an NCORP-related article "passed" NCORP but "failed" GNG and then got deleted but I'd be interested to hear if that has happened. HighKing++ 11:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The way I see it, the community has (usually slowly and painfully) formed a consensus in a topic specific area and agreed on guidelines (SNG) which may either include or exclude particular topics. What sometimes happens at AfD is that an editor will ignore or even refuse to acknowledge exclusions, saying it doesn't matter if it has failed NCORP once it passes GNG. The GNG/SNG either/or interpretation works perfectly fine for SNGs which contain *additional* mechanisms for topic inclusion but not for SNGs which contain exclusion criteria. HighKing++ 20:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Its true that it doesn't matter if it has failed NCORP once it passes GNG. You appear to be confusing passing GNG/SNG with being notable which isn't true, something can pass one or both and the consensus be that it isn't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
We're going round in circles. NCORP provides detailed explanations on how to interpret GNG - which we acknowledge as being stricter. So how can something "pass" GNG but fail NCORP? By rejecting NCORP interpretaion (strict) and instead preferring GNG (loose)? And if NCORP effectively encompasses all of GNG (which it does and granted not all SNG do), why apply GNG at all? HighKing++ 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Like (or even more so than) Wikipedia in general, WP:notability is a fuzzy ecosystem; it does not follow the concept that absolute rules can be logically discerned from the guidelines. While Horse Eye Back and HighKing are prima facia disagreeing, I think that they are both mostly right. The corporation part of NCorp is basically a slightly tougher (regarding nature of coverage) version of GNG which is what the fuzzy ecosystem tends to apply to for-profit corporations. I think that from a high level structural standpoint Horse Eye Back's statement is correct......either GNG or SNG is a "way in" and so meeting GNG is sufficient. IMO HighKing's statement of the actual defacto situation is accurate. IMO there are several ways to reconcile the two. One would be to say the the corporation portion of NCorp is GNG, albeit a slightly tougher version of it. Another way (and the way that I prefer to view it as) is that NCORP calibrates NG, and we are applying GNG. The reason I prefer that way of looking at it is that I believe that this concept is a key to tidying up various wp:notability challenges. In essence that the fuzzy ecosystem implements Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and that area-specific calibration of GNG would better implement the standard that the fuzzy ecosystem actually applies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The focus on a lot of these discussions tends to be how both GNG and SNG provide a "way in" and I think NG were generally written with that in mind. Where disagreements arise is where an SNG throws up a barrier to exclude a "way in" and where this exclusion isn't specifically obvious in GNG. We need to be clearer about how to apply the guidelines in those circumstances. The either/or wording in WP:N effectively nullifies SNG exclusions. I agree with your suggested solution as one way to tackle this issue, effectively incorporate SNG as part of GNG. HighKing++ 12:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
SNG don't do that, they can only raise the barrier for attaining the specific SNG they don't raise the notability barrier itself (remember that the point of SNG is to include things that GNG fails to include, not to exclude things which GNG includes). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works *produced* by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. NCORP expands on this and defines "Independent Content" which goes further, so that the *content* of works (that are not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it) must be attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Is this arguably excluding things which GNG includes? HighKing++ 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Theory is great, practice isn't like this though. Back to my original comment. At NCORP-related AfD's, it happens a lot where an editor says something along the lines of "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG". Here we're all agreeing that NCORP is not different than GNG, that it neither adds not takes away any criteria, but provides explanations and interpretations pertaining to applying the criteria. It doesn't stop editors at AfD who reject the interpretation of NCORP (e.g. where the criteria for establishing notability excludes particular sources) from saying "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG" and then relying solely on the mostly vague wording of GNG and the either/or wording. HighKing++ 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Have you tried saying "Yes GNG is met, but the article should still be deleted because X" and note that X can't be "it doesn't meet NCORP." Because that's the only real way forward if something does meet GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't tried that for the simple reason that it wouldn't make sense to say that - NCORP is (merely) a detailed guideline on how to interpret and apply GNG for companies/organizations. For me, they're the same thing really. For me, you can't pass GNG and fail NCORP. But you can for sure decide you don't like NCORP's interpretation and application of the applicable criteria and maintain a position of only looking and GNG and ignoring NCORP entirely, ignoring the detailed examples, etc. Unfortunately, that's the reality at a number of NCORP-related AfDs. HighKing++ 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you square your personal belief with the fact that the actual consensus language is "or" not "and"? Consensus is that you can pass GNG but fail a SNG and vice versa, it doesn't matter what it means "for me" you have to abide by consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thing is, NCORP isn’t like most SNGs… Most SNGs lay out criteria which (if met) should mean that the topic is highly likely to pass GNG.
NCORP, on the other hand starts with GNG as its base, and explains how to meet the requirements of GNG (especially the need for independent, reliable sources that cover the topic in reasonable depth).
Perhaps NCORP stresses a strict interpretation of GNG (taking some of the “wiggle room” out of GNG)… but it is still based on passing GNG. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The "wiggle room" to me is that you can still delete an article which passes GNG/SNG, it isn't some sort of automatic acceptance test. Passing GNG or a SNG is fine, but it just means that an article is *likely* to be notable it doesn't actually mean that it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the drafting of WP:SIRS be changed?
It seems bad that each source needs to be evaluated separately for the establishment of notability criteria. Shouldn't all sources be evaluated collectively, for the purpose of determining notability?
To require sources to be excluded for missing one of the four criteria in this way; is overly legalistic, and divorces the notability question of Wikipedia from the real-life issue. Wouldn't it be better to make this more flexible, to conform with real-life intuition? Jack4576 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You're trying to change a guideline cited by a user here at a deletion discussion on one of your articles, minutes after they posted that comment. These attempts to change the rules when your preference doesn't succeed aren't really constructive. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from casting aspersions. This rule is counter-intuitive; is overly legalistic, and I am concerned that it supports perverse outcomes Jack4576 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of casting aspersions without evidence. The comment I linked to above was added to an AfD on an article you created, and thirty minutes later, here we are. Stating what's obvious is not aspersion-casting. Learn the difference. In addition, you've attempted to change multiple guidelines you disagreed with before; this isn't something new. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
You literally just ascribed a motive to me that you have no basis for ascribing.
That is an aspersion.
My subjective state is by no means 'obvious' to you.
Besides, that AfD discussion is not relevant to the issue currently being discussed, as the situation with sourcing is different.
No - SIRS is a really low bar to get over and if your article can't get over it, it almost certainly shouldn't be here. We're just asking that a couple of people in sources considered reliable and independent for this topic said something substantial about it. That's it. If you don't have at least a couple of sources like that when you start then don't start writing! I will say though that often you can get around it based simply on what people's bar is for "significant coverage" because everyone's personal standard for it differs. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think its a low bar really. Especially with regard to local / historical situations where verifiable facts are only supported by fragmented sources.
My concern is that there are some instances where a fair reading of a range of sources support a SIGCOV view; but that the above rule unjustifiably excludes some sources from contributing toward that assessment.
Surely it would be better to leave this to a consensus judgement, rather than a legislative rule barring what sources can / cannot be considered in a notability assessment. The core concern is that all sources are reliable and verifiable; and that those sources can be analysed appropriately to determine the notability issue. Jack4576 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if you can convince people to keep something despite it failing every single standard and basically not even being an article, typically it will be kept (even if it shouldn't). This doesn't change SIRS not being a hard barrier to get over for most things that are actually worth writing about. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that is the case, typically. There is a tendency amongst a particular faction of editors to prefer legalism over the looseness of ideas like IAR. Unfortunately that tendency appears to be growing in dominance; and policy reform is necessary, as merely 'convincing' to go outside of rules as written no longer appears to be enough.
For -most- things, sure, but I am concerned (as you acknowledge), that it still remains a barrier to some things worth writing about.
No. It's comparatively rare for a topic to meet the more basic test of being a topic one expects to find when opening an encyclopedia and also to require sourcing be pieced together from scraps. Corporations are not the exception. In this context, WP:SIRS makes sense. As to the charge that WP:SIRS is "overly legalistic", much the same could be said about nearly all the policies and guidelines, and nothing would stop the exact opposite instructions from being equally legalistic. Moreover, authorizing people to write articles about corporations based on scraping together morsels would, to put it mildly, make shameless advertising much harder to stop. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
opening an encyclopedia let’s be real, how many encyclopaedias have 6 million pages? Wikipedia is now so much more than an encyclopaedia and so the comparison feels tired - Wikipedia is far broader in scope. Garuda3 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
No - SRIS is extremely important. This is what guides editors such as myself who routinely work on company pages, is helpful to point to when coming across a COI editors (as is WP:ORGCRIT), and a good tool for submitters and reviewers at AfC. It has helped cut down on draft submissions using sources from major publications that are written by contributors. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
No. This has very long-standing consensus, and is why WP is not totally overrun with garbage articles on non-notable subjects. The fact that, for example, some in-house publication that is not independent of the subject (the I in SIRS) might have significant, in-depth coverage (the first S in SIRS) is irrelevant. It's a junk source that can't be used to establish notability. There is nothing even faintly unintuitive about this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
No - I hardly need add anything to this snowy consensus, but as it was my comment that seems to have sparked the question, I'll just add that citing SIRS was a helpful shorthand so I did not have to write a minor (or not so minor - I can be verbose) essay at AfD making the exact points that SIRS encapsulates. A lot of thought went into SIRS, and some of that is summarised above. No good reason has been given for changing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NCORP and The Oregonian
The Oregonian is published in Portland, Oregon’s largest city at 650K. Oregon has no other large cities; the next largest is Eugene at 175K, and although TO focusses primarily on Portland it is considered a statewide publication (or even regional as it does cover over the state line into the Vancouver area, a few minutes away and takes a general interest in the big stories in the Pacific Northwest, although that isn't atypical for large city newspapers.)
The problem
We have editors arguing that because TO is a "statewide" or "regional" publication, it's not local even for Portland, and everya Portland business covered by it, even without coverage outside the area, is notable. This is the result:
One particularly egregious area is restaurants, a category of business which is inherently local. Restaurants don't sell outside their area; people come to them, and when a restaurant is notable, sources outside the local area will cover it because they're telling their readers about a restaurant that is worth a drive or at least a stop. A recent example.
For businesses in Portland, coverage in The Oregonian should be considered local coverage. I'm tempted to include other major newspapers that cover regionally or even nationally but have a local focus, but I'm not seeing this problem with the Los Angeles Times and WaPo, for instance. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
All the tables you've shared above indicate is that there are editors passionate about writing articles on Portland topics. Garuda3 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Lucier was certainly what finally spurred me to open a discussion, but the facts are pretty clear. LA and DC have plenty of editors. They just aren't misinterpreting NCORP. Please try to assume good faith; I'm here because this is concerning. (And Liz and I are still discussing.) Valereee (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the issue you take is not with notability its with one editor who has gone out of their way to make pages for the notable restaurants of Portland, as far as I can tell no editor has made a similar effort for LA or DC so the numbers you're presenting aren't terribly meaningful even if you seem to think that they are. I'd also take another look at your data for businesses, there actually appear to be many many more businesses listed for LA they're just in subcategories rather than listed individually so they don't appear at all in your overly simplistic (to the point of being misleading) numbers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It's with notability. And it isn't actually a single editor; there are multiple editors who !vote keep at AfD regularly with the argument that TO is not local for Portland. And there are multiple subcats for Portland, too, such as Category:Defunct European restaurants in Portland, Oregon, which itself has subcats for defunct Italian and defunct French. Valereee (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I said you had a problem with an editor who created the articles, you responded by talking about editors who vote at AFD not those who create articles. I criticized the fact that the "Businesses" chart was misleading and you responded with a comment about the "Restaurants" chart. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I have no problem with the editor who created the articles, I like them, respect their work and find them generally excellent to work with. I think when it comes to Portland, they are misinterpreting NCORP. That is all. Valereee (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
And I'd argue that for, say, Eugene, TO could be considered not-local, and make the same argument that for Buffalo we should consider the NYT not-local. Valereee (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Part of the initial reasoning is that the number of Portland restaurants vs. other cities is "egregious." This is a weak premise to use as a basis for this discussion, though. Cities are not automatically equivalent, this is why the encyclopedia is written based on coverage in reliable sources rather than by comparing, e.g., cities. It's possible for one city to have more notable restaurants per capita than another.
Some points: Within the last year Portland has been identified in one list (WalletHub) as the #1 U.S. city for foodies; one list places Oregon at #35 of 50 states by number of fast food restaurants per capita.
Furthermore, it could be that there are notable restaurants in other cities that nobody has bothered to write a Wikipedia article about yet.
I don't understand why we would write policy for one particular newspaper in one particular city, especially with such a questionable premise motivating the discussion. Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe 'the solution' is a different 'line of attack' rather than fixating on whether or not The Oregonian is a local, regional or statewide source. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I also take issue with Valereee's restaurant count. Use of 'categories' as the basis significantly understates the number of Portland restaurants with a Wikipedia article. Opening the collapsible template box normally found at the bottom of each restaurant article reveals a much higher number. Haven't counted them one by one, but my rough estimate is around the 450 mark including defuncts and chains. Rupples (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that several factors are combining here. I think that our NCORP guideline (and using it to calibrate GNG regarding coverage) if fully implemented would be OK, but in reality it usually isn't. And so Wikipedia is at risk of turning into the yellow pages for tens of millions of local businesses. In both of the linked AFD's there was an absence of a discussion establishing that there was true in depth coverage by even one source. Common reviews / writeups aren't that. Instead of pointing to even one with in depth coverage, the argument was basically only that there are a bunch of references, a general claim that GNG is met. And a sort of "if you don't agree, you need to prove a negative instead of me establishing that coverage with even one source." Similarly for the other linked one, and the lack of any real content in that other article evidences that. Regarding the Oregonian, IMHO the one of the two other unspoken criteria that the wp:notability ecosystem implements (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) is why the non-local coverage required by the tougher sourcing standards NCORP exists which is to see if there is extra recognition by non-local sources. Also to see if there is more there to cover with enclyclopedic content compared to the typical restaurant. A sort of vetting from the other 10 million restaurants with local reviews where they or their fans would like them to have a Wikipedia article. IMHO the Oregonian is local in this respect. If we strengthen the existing language (just a bit more clarity and expansion, not a change of substance) I think that that would help. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't use subject notability standards to "calibrate" GNG... Each is applied separately and their outcomes can be different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
You are basically saying "never".....with that I don't agree. The most obvious example is use of NCORP sourcing and coverage criteria when applying GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't use NCORP sourcing and coverage criteria when applying GNG, thats the whole point. Something can pass GNG and fail NCORP, thats fine and the article can be kept or deleted either way (passing doesn't mean the article is automatically notable after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree with your first sentence and IMHO I'm stating current and accepted reality. I agree with your second sentence. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Writeups on businesses by newspapers that normally cover routine news from the location of those businesses should always be considered local. I don't understand how this is controversial? JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
JJ, it's controversial because of the language at WP:AUD: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. (Emph mine)
This is being interpreted to mean that TO, because it is a statewide publication, isn't a local source even for Portland, which (because that's where it's published and that's Oregon's largest city) is its primary coverage area. That is what is being used at AfD to argue notability of businesses that have no coverage outside of Portland-area publications. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
NCORP is not the only way to notability for a restaurant, it could also pass GNG in the food or locality categories (business is just one category that applies to them, it doesn't get to trump any of the other categories). It can fail NCORP and be notable, end of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
While this position seems reasonable in a vacuum, it doesn't make sense in the context of the actual text of NCORP. NCORP's provisions are purely a stricter version of GNG, established for the express purpose of de-valuing the notability-establishing qualities of routine business coverage that is produced in high quantities and with dubious levels of independence. While it is theoretically possible for a subject to meet an SNG and not GNG or vice versa, the specific provisions of NCORP mean that it is impossible for something to pass NCORP's primary criteria but not GNG, and the idea that we could evaluate company or organization articles by GNG instead of NCORP flies in the face of both the basic reasoning of NCORP's existence and the established practice at AfD and NPP; NCORP would be a dead letter if GNG can overrule it.
Now, we could form a new consensus that restaurants form a special category of company, and that thus we should treat them differently, similar to the exceptions made for WP:NSCHOOL. No such carveout currently exists, and the suggestion below that a restaurant could be assessed as companies, food and drink, and Oregon ignores that no special SNGs for "food and drink" or "Oregon" exist. signed, Rosguilltalk18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Neither can overrule the other, thats why notability is decided based on a case-by-case consensus. We may decide to delete an article which passes an SNG and/or GNG and we may decide to keep an article which fails GNG but passes an SNG (and vice versa). The only thing we can't do is keep an article which passes neither GNG or any of the SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that's a viable reading in abstract, but doesn't reflect how AfD consensuses are actually determined. Can you point to any AfDs about a company or organization closed as keep with a consensus that NCORP was not met? signed, Rosguilltalk22:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Garuda3 I think that is an apples/oranges comparison. The BBC is an international publication while The Oregonian is local to Oregon, see their About Us page vs the BBC's. The question here is should The Oregonian's restaurant coverage be considered local. It describes itself as a "local" publication for Oregon with their dining section labeled as "Portland & Oregon Dining", which to me suggests they do make a distinction between the two but unclear how to tell the difference if is it Portland coverage vs. Oregon, outside of the location of the establishment. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That argument might work if The Oregonian was independent, but its not its owned by Advance Publications so the "location of the establishment" is as effectively New York City as it is Portland. I would also ask how coverage of a region (Oregon) could be local? Either its local coverage or its Oregon coverage but it can't be both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, if the BBC is literally the only media covering a London business, then yes. If a business is notable, it will be covered by something outside its local area. That said, it's likely moot, as anything the BBC covers probably gets picked up elsewhere. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh my last sentence was facetious, I'm well familiar with why this is controversial. I 100% agree that The Oregonian is local for Portland businesses, and I think this is extremely evident from the fact that the newspaper covers, for Portland, the exact types of routine announcements etc. excluded from being "newsworthy" by NOTNEWS. If the newspaper regularly runs family-submitted obituaries or high school sports results from particular towns, those towns are obviously local to the newspaper. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this being discussed. I was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephants Delicatessen and felt that, despite the keep arguments that were made, the article doesn't Wikipedia:Speak for Itself - the business exists, it cares about the environment, is women-owned and is apparently a great place to work. The author said there was plenty material to add, but hasn't added it. Clearly Portland people like their food but it is as if there's a different threshold of notability at play here and I am glad Valereee has called it out. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That brings up an interesting question, Elephants Delicatessen is categorized as Companies, Food and Drink, and Oregon... So why would NCORP be the *only* notability standard which applies? It can fail NCORP and still be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Because restaurants are at the very least a proprietorship which are covered under NCORP. In addition, restaurants are specifically mentioned eight times in the guideline for example WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, which does state: Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience).S0091 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
GNG actually does not always apply, for example WP:NPROF and generally WP:NPLACE is an exception. NCORP is an extension of GNG but distinguishes itself by WP:ORGCRIT, which topics that fall under NCORP must meet. See Rosguill's comments above as well. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
In the case of WP:NPROF both the SNG WP:NPROF and GNG apply... In the case of WP:NPLACE the SNG WP:NGEO and GNG apply. SNG are not extensions of GNG, NCORP is an SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Bad wording on my part perhaps but at the end of the day businesses do need to meet NCORP. It's largely why the guideline exists. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think NCORP is the exception as far as a guideline being more strict than GNG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT) but I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic. Valereee's purpose of the discussion is about a single source and how it should be treated for a single topic area that falls under NCORP. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is off topic, the question is about NCORP not the specific source otherwise we would be at WP:RSN. Does NCORP take precedence over other SNG? For example a sports team would be covered by GNG, NCORP, and WP:NSPORTS (which explicitly points to GNG, not NCORP). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The one other SNG that is similar in its restriction, rather than expansion of criteria is WP:NEVENT. Categorizing SNGs by the nature of their provisions is an exercise that I like to use in NPPSCHOOL to get editors familiar with the SNGs. The correct answer looks more or less like this, although there's some wiggle room as to what should be part of category 3 (even mix) vs. primarily 1 or 2. signed, Rosguilltalk19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it's purely descriptive, based on the content of the SNGs themselves. Moreover, virtually every student I've tutored has provided essentially the same answer to the question (with a little bit of variation in which are considered to be part of the "both" category, particularly for the more obscure SNGs WP:NWEB and WP:NNUMBER), and it received enthusiastic support from the other NPPSCHOOL instructors when I first introduced it to the curriculum a few years ago. signed, Rosguilltalk22:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well now I'm confused because there you say "SNGs are shortcut rules by which we can establish that it is highly likely that GNG is met." which is entirely different than anything we've so far discussed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that's what I get for simplifying "heuristic" down to "shortcut rule". I'd stand by it as a description of the category 1 inclusion-criteria SNGs (and as a correction to the student's main error). signed, Rosguilltalk23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
As a description of just those its not bad... I prefer a treasure map analogy with the treasure being the intangible point where a subject magically attains enough significant coverage to flip from non-notable to notable... GNG is a general map for general purpose use while the SNG are maps made by those with considerable accrued knowledge in a specific subject area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
According to NSPORT, This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline so if the subject was a sport team or club, I would defer to NSPORT (if covered) or GNG. NCORP specifically states bands (which is technically a "group") falls under NMUSIC. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm easily confused, but what are we hoping to decide here? There's nothing wrong with the Oregonian over any other State or Regional newspaper, it's just that there is a disproportionate use of this source for building articles on restaurants that are marginally notable at the very best. If we had the same rabid foodie fanbase is Oklahoma City, for instance, the issue would still be the same, just a different newspaper. Do I have that right? And the issue is that WP:AUD is trumping WP:GNG in deletion discussions? I don't think anyone would mistake me for a deletionist, but that doesn't seem right. WP:LOCALINT is a failed proposal, and WP:LOCAL is an essay (not guideline or policy) that I don't find helpful here. My take is that the proposal seems to take issue with one particular publication. In my opinion we need to address how we handle business reviews in papers serving any locality. Back when I regularly read the Oregonian, restaurant reviews were in the "Local" section. If it's relegated to the fourth page of "Local" should that be considered statewide coverage? I don't know the current state of the publication, but is an appearance in "local" given equal weight to, say, a page 2 writeup which would generally be considered of statewide interest? Or course everything is online and you can't distinguish between sections anymore, I guess. I'm not sure I'm helping, but I see three questions here. 1- is the Oregonian of any different quality than other State/Regional papers, should it be singled out? 2-Is there some context we can glean by the type of writeup within a State/Regional paper? 3-Do we need to enhance AUD to clarify the intent so we avoid WP:NOTYELLOW? 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
NCORP defines what counts toward GNG for corporations. That's straight from WP:N: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Therefore, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability overrides any assertion that a business with substantial coverage solely from local sources meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: We have editors arguing that because TO is a "statewide" or "regional" publication, it's not local even for Portland, and every Portland business covered by it, even without coverage outside the area, is notable." For the record, no one is saying "every Portland business" covered by The Oregonian, "even without coverage outside the area, is notable". No one. Please stop misrepresenting the argument of people who disagree with you. ---Another Believer(Talk)17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Another Believer when you are assessing coverage by TO about a Portland business, how do you determine if it contributes to notability? It would be helpful to me to understand your perspective given your focus and expertise about Portland and Oregon. S0091 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@S0091: I want to acknowledge your request but decline to respond immediately. I've been dragged into so many of these discussions lately. I'd like to just observe and see what other editors say, at least for now. I will say, User:Cbl62's comments have resonated with me the most so far, if that gives you a better sense of my thinking. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I have been following this issue for a while. Valereee takes whatever option possible to attack Portland restaurants. Sure there aren't many LA restaurant articles right now, but WP:Otherstuffdoesntexist is just as poor of an argument as WP:Otherstuffexists. The idea that the statewide newspaper is local is silly, and that we need to solely follow NCORP. Plenty of restaurants are historical and cultural places, in notable buildings or part of a food or beverage culture important to a city. They're not simply corporations, and cannot simply relate to just this single notability guideline. ɱ(talk)18:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
MJ, that is a horrible thing to say, and completely untrue, and an assumption of bad faith. I create a lot of restaurant and chef and related articles, including the Portland-area ones for Sarah Minnick and Erika Polmar. I don't even !vote in most Portland restaurant AfDs. If I wanted to "[take] whatever option possible to attack Portland restaurant", I would participate in a lot more AfDs. Please provide diffs for this personal attack. Valereee (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
What is the default location for weather on Oregon Live? Portland. Which city has its own news category? Portland. Which cities' school closures and delays are listed? Portland, Vancouver, and Salem areas. Which cities' high school sports regular season events are reported? Portland and Portland area. How is this not local? JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I have always understood there to be a second factor to AUD… reach outside a local area. A paper such as The NY Times is read by thousands of people beyond just NYC, so even local stories are read by those thousands. To relate this to companies and restaurants, coverage in the Times means that LOTS of people beyond the local audience will know of those companies and restaurants. While “notability” is not the same as “fame”… they are related concepts. At the other extreme, a small towns local paper (with a circulation of a few hundred locals) may give in-depth coverage to the 150th anniversary of the town’s one restaurant… but that report has not disseminated beyond the local area. That coverage is not enough to impart notability (or even “fame”).
Where things get difficult is with medium sized outlets like the Oregonian. Reviews of restaurants in Portland are read by people all over the State, and (based on those reviews) those people might make a point of eating there when they visit the “big city”… in other words… the review imparts a degree of “fame” that can translate into what we here at WP call “notability”. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Do we use "reach" for notability in any other GNG considerations? Primary sources from the companies themselves are often circulated in larger areas than the location they serve, wouldn't that contribute the same "audience"? I would think the salient point of receiving coverage in non-local news (especially for NCORP purposes) is that someone completely independent of the local business-promotion inherent in newspapers (That means focusing on the needs of our readers and local businesses) considers the topic broadly noteworthy enough to write about. The alternative is that businesses in cities get an automatic notability boost simply because their local reviews get wider distribution, regardless of whether anyone outside the city has taken an interest in them. This also wildly overweights coverage by papers with large local dining sections, which paradoxically will amplify more routine food news (like the threearticles on Portland brunching options published this week). In my opinion, if an article lists the street address and/or number of a business, it shouldn't be considered non-local (and is most definitely engaged in soft promotion). JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Exploring the broader issue
I find that it sometimes helps to step back from an immediate dispute and discuss analogous situations… so… consider the Times Union (Albany), a regional paper in New York State with a similar circulation to the Oregonian. Would we consider a restaurant review in that paper as indicating notability or not? then ask… at what point does a paper cross the line from “local” to “regional” for business reporting? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The Plain Dealer is probably another. Coverage of Cleveland should be considered local coverage, but if it's reviewing a Pittsburgh restaurant, I'd consider it non-local. Valereee (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
According to WP:AUDat least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary (bolding mine). What would be considered statewide? All newspapers, including state/regional have their own dining type sections, which includes restaurant reviews/coverage in the city the newspaper is located. If those are completely dismissed, then how would a restaurant meet "statewide" coverage? S0091 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how old that language is, but I don't even think that's how NCORP is typically/generally assessed now. Coverage in the Cincinnati Enquirer of a Pittsburgh business is typically considered to support notability, and vice versa. I haven't seen anyone demanding coverage in a "regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source", just a non-local one that is clearly RS and not penny-ante. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Just be clear, you are only looking for one in-depth review/other coverage outside the "local area" to meet/indicate notability? (Side note: I totally had to look up "penny-ante" lol, not a term I familiar with). S0091 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@S0091, in general I wouldn't object to a single coverage outside. I prefer to see two, and that's what I look for when creating, that's what I generally ask for at AfC, but I think we can be flexible on the meaning of "multiple". :) Even one is at least evidence of notability outside the local area. Valereee (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
At the top of the pyramid, there are a number of major regional newspapers that subscribe to the highest journalistic standards and should never be considered "local" for notability purposes. Examples include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News. I'm not sure where The Oregonian fits in to the national newspaper hierarchy it appears to be one of the two most important papers in the Pacific Northwest. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are considered national newspapers of record so those, to me, are not a fair comparison, like The Boston Globe, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Tribune, etc. S0091 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
[after SECOND edit conflict] — I've only skimmed this, but I think I have some fuzzy idea of the issue[s[. And it's hard to analyze. For example, The Boston Globe is definitely the regional newspaper for most of New England; but on the other hand, the Globe covers the opening, closing, cuisine and ambience of a lot of dining and food places in Boston, Cambridge and their immediate suburbs — that doesn't make each and every one of them notable, although some of them were and are (e.g. the now-departed Durgin Park). But to make things even more complicated, the Globe has been making a strong push to cover news and features in Rhode Island, especially Providence (whose now-fading and fast-shrinking Gannett-acquired Providence Journal also still retains a weekly Food section). And Providence in recent decades has become a foodie-destination mecca, partly because so many culinary graduates of Johnson and Wales University start their first businesses there. Some of these establishments would, in my non-gourmet opinion, qualify as notable, and might be covered more in The Journal than The Globe, or vice-versa. [This overlap would not apply to, say, The San Francisco Chronicle versus The Los Angeles Times, although both qualify as regional newspapers.] I'm sorry I'm not more coherent, but perhaps I've indicated some of the inherent confusion.
@Cbl62, if a Manhattan restaurant has only been reviewed in the NYT, I'd still question it. If a restaurant is notable, it will be covered outside its local area. If we consider coverage in the NYT of any NYC restaurant to prove notability, that could be hundreds of restaurants every year for the past five+ decades. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
All of those still also cover routine local news for particular areas. The point of AUD isn't just to ensure high journalistic standards (i.e. low potential for PROMO), it's mainly to prevent articles being created on topics of purely local interest. An article on the "Sky Club on Concourse B at Hartsfield-Jackson" shouldn't pass the non-local coverage requirement just because it got a writeup in AJC. Nor should neighborhood farmers markets. Nor should the 5 "Polish restaurants with Turkish themes" in Chicago profiled by CT. If a review lists the business's street address and/or phone number, it's clearly for locals. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The solution is not to say that coverage from regional or national newspapers is "local" and therefore disqualifying. Such a ruling would be an extremely bad precedent. It is also fundamentally inconsistent with WP:AUD which simply requires at least one regional or statewide source. The major newspapers referenced in my prior post plainly meet that standard. The key, as always, in any GNG analysis is to examine and weigh the depth of the coverage in each particular source and the breadth of the coverage across multiple sources. This is "GNG 101", and slippery-slope arguments about the "Sky Club on Concourse B at Hartsfield-Jackson" should not be a basis for changing our core GNG policies. Cbl62 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Side note: The writeup cited above on the Sky Club is not from the actual AJC; it's from the AJC's Atlanta restaurant blog -- very different. Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
No one is saying all coverage from regional or national newspapers is local coverage. We're saying local coverage by them is local coverage. Valereee (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee, restaurant articles aren't my editing niche, so I don't know how common it is for restaurants to be covered by media outlets outside their native metropolitan area. That said, if a Manhattan restaurant gets reviews of true depth from some combination of The New York Times, Newsday, the New York Daily News, and the New York Post, I don't think anybody would quarrel with the notability. As noted in my post above, we ought not be creating rules artificially requiring coverage from a completely different region; instead, we should be rigorously applying the rules that already exist, i.e., examining the depth and breadth of the coverage to determine whether a stand-alone article is warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly - depth and breadth of coverage is what really counts. WP:AUD shouldn't be the prime determining factor of notability. Rupples (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Restaurant articles are in my wheelhouse. If a restaurant got routine reviews from multiple local sources, I'd still question it. If a restaurant is notable, it will get reviews outside its local area. That literally is always true. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It "literally is always true" but its entirely circular, if you require reviews outside its local area in order for a restaurant to be notable then all notable restaurants will have reviews outside its local area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, yes. I would say all notable restaurants will have coverage outside the local media. That's what tells us they're more than locally notable. Valereee (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
If that was the entirety of your argument it would be reasonable, but you follow it with the addendum "aaaaaaand state and regional coverage counts as local coverage notakesebacksies" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually it is the entirety of my argument. Literally For businesses in Portland, coverage in The Oregonian should be considered local coverage is the entire thing. Valereee (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
But its an anti-factual argument, we know for a fact that Lucier (restaurant) is notable because we have a consensus on that very issue. So Lucier (restaurant) meets your first standard, "all notable restaurants will have coverage outside the local media" (its notable so some of its coverage must be outside the local media) but you don't actually like your first standard which leads you to add the addendum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
If I’m understanding this correctly, the objective of your starting this discussion is to reach consensus that The Oregonian is local for the purpose of WP:AUD and thus doesn’t confer notability. Even if that is the consensus here, surely you’d have to take this further to achieve traction by its inclusion in the NCORP notability guideline, as I don’t foresee contributors to AfDs on Portland restaurants being influenced by consensus achieved on this Talk page. To help achieve what appears to be your aim of deleting Portland restaurants you consider non-notable, it would have to be stated as an amendment to WP:AUD. Narrowly focusing on The Oregonian seems arbitrary and unlikely to result in such a revision. Rupples (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you claiming that "regional and national newspapers" cannot also produce local content? What do you call a subsection of a newspaper dedicated specifically to the dining options of the city it is based in, and how is that different from a subsection with the same focus, scope, and target audience generated by a newspaper with lower circulation? What exactly do you think the regional or statewide interest is in AJC's coverage of an Atlanta pre-arrest diversion center's construction updates, or its report on a man who fell from a parking deck in an Atlanta suburb, or the proceedings of the Atlanta school board's budget meeting?
And the writeup is not "very different" from the AJC; it is written by an AJC business reporter and hosted directly under AJC.com/news. Or do you consider the "Atlanta Local News from AJC" section of the AJC from where the "blog" is also linked to be "not AJC" as well? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
To answer your first question, I am claiming that "regional and national newspapers" are "regional and national newspapers". WP:AUD simply requires at least one source from a "regional or national newspaper". It does not say that such coverage has to be from a different region or a different country. IMO such a requirement would be kind of absurd. In answer to your second question, I would expect it to be called a "Fine Dining" or "Restaurants" section or something like that. To answer your third question, I would expect such coverage in a national/regional publication to be of higher quality and to have tighter editorial control than in a podunk small-town newspaper. (I didn't understand the relevance or gist of your lengthy fourth question.) To answer your fifth and last question, I do think that a newspaper's online restaurant "blog" is different from the newspaper itself. Cbl62 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
And that's what I'm arguing we should be considering the interpretation of. When a source that primarily focusses on local content but also does regional coverage covers a local business, it should be considered local coverage.
Because if we don't, we truly are saying that any business covered in the local paper which happens to also do regional coverage can be argued to be notable simply on the basis of that coverage. Which is why we have so many articles on Portland businesses which have never been covered outside of their local paper. Valereee (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)\
Again our current policy describes the source not the coverage as local, statewide, national, international etc. If the goal is to differentiate between coverage at the local, statewide, national, international etc levels we would need to rewrite the policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Its not the coverage that Notability (organizations and companies) describes its the sources themselves: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." If you want the level of coverage and not the level of the source to be evaluated we'd need to rewrite the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that interpretation clashes with the rest of the guidance on NCORP, where the locality of coverage is the sticking point. For example, the explicit designation of coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below) and routine coverage, such as: (...) of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops
as trivial. And if AUD defines "local" by the circulation of a paper, why is "local media" considered separately from "media of limited interest or circulation"? Wouldn't that be redundant?
It also doesn't make sense -- does that mean a small-town newspaper's feature article on a topic 3,000 miles away does not count as "non-local coverage"? There was a big two-page spread in my (New Jersey) town's paper on the indigenous Guatemalan women's cricket scene (or something to that effect); surely that would be considered international SIGCOV in SIRS?? I'm pretty sure some editors here would be even more strongly opposed to deprecating all small-town newspapers than to including a regional newspaper's "local news" section as "local media". JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes a small-town newspaper's feature article on a topic 3,000 miles away does not count as "non-local coverage." Thats how it works. Think about what you're proposing, a writer from Branson who visits LA for her father's funeral and writes a review of the one restaurant she ate at while there would count for more than a feature review in the LA Times. Thats not what notability is about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you are reading "audience" in The source's audience must also be considered as meaning the number of people, and "source" as meaning the newspaper as a whole. I interpret "audience" as meaning target interest group (as in, I often have to tailor my talks to my "audience", e.g. experts in my subfield vs experts in the larger field vs laypeople), and "source" as meaning the article itself. Therefore, a newspaper article that was written for and of interest to only locals is disqualified even if it's in a "prestigious" regional newspaper. This derives from our NOTNEWS guidance on "routine coverage" and our expectation that subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article. What difference does it make whether a review on a Portland venue was in The Oregonian's "Portland Dining" section or in the Portland Mercury if topics are always drawn from the same geographically-constrained options? The Oregonian (etc.) doesn't have a large number of subscribers because lots of people are interested in the restaurant options of its home base, it's large because it covers the whole state broadly in addition to providing more focused local news and promotion of local business (as do all the other papers noted above). JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
How do you determine what the target interest group is without either existing academic research or OR? I'm not aware of any research on The Oregonian's readership, where are you sourcing that information about subscriber motivation from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This is in the context of AUD, so the target interest group is locals... News articles targeted at locals are easy to identify by their designation as "local news" or "Portland news", or by otherwise focusing on local topics. Why would we need research on The Oregonian's readership to understand that the local news section is not why non-locals subscribe to the paper? Who follows other cities' traffic incidents or weather or Chick-fil-A locations? JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
AUD as currently worded breaks different media organizations apart based on the scope of their coverage, it does not establish any grounds for distinguishing between content from a media organization. The context at AUD is the target interest group of the media organization, not the target interest group of a particular article. You appear to be imagining something which isn't at AUD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
AUD does not say "media organization". In the examples of trivial coverage, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies also shows that the topic of coverage can be designated "local" and dismissed. The inherent notability section also mentions "very small local companies", and NGO says substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Why would we have a different requirement for NGOs than for commercial orgs? JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Probably the intent (for helping setting them apart from the other 10,000,000 restaurants) is coverage by a writer and a large newspaper who are not from in or near city where the restaurant is located. That such decided to write and publish in-depth coverage. I know that it's messy to try to relate it to the current wording but talking about intent/purpose might also be useful. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the solution to this problem is to refine notability guidelines for restaurants (and businesses in general) to say they need coverage beyond the local area where they reside. I'd attack the problem from that side rather than putting yet more restrictions on sources that may have unintended consequences. I think putting yet more draconian restrictions on source usage is Wikipedia, yet again, using a shotgun to kill a mosquito. Dave (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The first issue is to recognise there's a problem. I'm not sure everyone here does. For me, the current NCORP guidelines are not fit-for-purpose for restaurants or for restaurant chains. Under the current guidelines, just about every restaurant (chain) that has ever been reviewed will meet the guidelines. Most restaurant articles on Wikipedia are of a very poor quality and many articles leave you scratching your head, wondering why that particular establishment is/was notable. The "problem" lies in the fact that we treat "reviews" as sources that meet our criteria for establishing notability, despite the fact that millions of restaurant reviews are published every day in lots of different sources. Unless and until we establish a higher criteria for notability no amount of gentle tweaking of our guidelines or working on interpretations of WP:AUD will work. There are other criteria that we should be using such as state/national/international awards, award-winning/decorated chefs, even celebrity chefs, or notable locations, etc. HighKing++ 19:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis including that there is a problem. But a review is not "in depth coverage" yet that is happening. Maybe we could just add something to reinforce/clarify. Like: "Most reviews do not constitute in-depth coverage."North8000 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
To flesh that out further :"Most restaurant reviews and review type coverage of other retail establishments do not not include the required type of in-depth coverage". North8000 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
HighKing is right - not everyone believes there is a problem. What needs to take place first is discussion to determine a consensus on what, if anything, the problem is. Until this is decided, the prospect for any change in the notability guideline or the "what wikipedia is not" policy is slim to non-existent. Rupples (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
May I suggest a closer read of HighKing's post? IMO they said that there is a problem and then describe what it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the first two sentences of HighKing's post. Some people who have commented here, including HighKing, Valereee and you, do see a problem with the way notability is being established for restaurants. However, whether that is the majority view is yet to be determined. It is apparent from the responses to this discussion that some contributors do not accept there is a problem. Rupples (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t believe there is a problem and am opposed to adding restrictions to NCORP. The proposed ideas (celebrity chefs, awards, etc) would exclude chains like Frankie & Benny's which is obviously notable but not due to its outstanding food… Garuda3 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It would also leave us with a situation where a given major city would have >10x as many articles about people who played a professional sport in them as restaurants... So every member of the LA Lakers is notable but I have to find coverage from St Louis of a restaurant in LA in order for them to be notable? Give me a break... Agreed there is no problem here, we have less articles for Portland restaurants than we do for people who've played soccer or basketball there. If in the future we have more articles about restaurants than b and c list athletes we can reevaluate whether there is an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that the gigantic quantity of sports person articles is legacy from the previous "did it for a living for one day" criteria. If you will forgive me, respectfully, to me your argument looks like "restaurants aren't a problem because sports is even worse" :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
You would first have to establish that the quantity of sports bios we have is a problem, good luck getting consensus for that. If both of those are a problem for you then you want a complete rewrite of GNG, there is no way to satisfy that sort of bloodlust in the SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to characterize your argument, not make those assertions. Which are two large topics by themselves which I won't comment on other than to say that IMO if the current standards were fully enforced, we'd be be in pretty good shape on new articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I was expressing my opinion from having looked at thousands of articles. One is free to accept or reject my opinion. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I was asking because as far as I can tell we are in pretty good shape on new articles and the current standards are being enforced. We've both looked at thousands of articles and come to opposite conclusions, obviously its not possible to provide specific evidence of the absence of an issue hence the request for specific evidence that there is an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Well the prima facie problem is the ambiguity which caused this thread to occur. IMHO the other problem is that we're laying the tracks for making Wikipedia the yellow pages for the other 10,000,000 local businesses North8000 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Thats not an ambiguity its a clear consensus. Do you mean the consensus which the OP didn't agree with which caused this thread to occur? The restaurant in question meets the current standards which is why the OP is seeking to modify them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The solution isn't to increase coverage of non-notable non-sportspeople, it's to enforce our existing GNG standards for non-notable sportspeople. If you don't want there to be 10x more articles on athletes for a given city, then participate in the discussions at NSPORT and AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that we increase our coverage. The question on the table is whether or not to radically restrict our coverage beyond anything we've done before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This would only clarify that businesses in cities that are home to a major "regional" newspaper should be covered by a newspaper outside their local area. I don't see how that would radically restrict anything. If media outside the business location aren't covering the business, that shows the business is not of interest outside its own city (where it happens to enjoy outsize promotional influence). JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't actually think it would be an innovation. In my experience the vast majority of editors writing about restaurants are indeed looking for at least some coverage outside the restaurant's local area, and that includes restaurants in NYC, Wash DC, LA which are covered by national newspapers. I think in practice that's what's happening. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
.svg)