Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82

Notability standard for restaurants?

Something that has bothered me for a few days. I happened upon an interesting Wikipedia tool (WikiShootMe), & was using it to look at Wikipedia articles by location to discover a number of articles on locations within a walk of my house. A few clicks, & I was surprised to find that several local neighborhood restaurants had Wikipedia articles about them! (They include an average take-out pizza shop, a Hawaiian restaurant, & a breakfast/brunch restaurant.) My first reaction was to nominated some of them for deletion, but as I read the articles, they are built on multiple restaurant reviews from disinterested publications, so it could be argued that they meet WP:GNG.

However, IMHO Wikipedia should not be a restaurant guide: there should be a requirement that a restaurant have historic significance (say, owned by the same family for over 100 years as in the case of Huber's), or cultural (say, introduced a notable dish or cuisine locally or nationally as in the case of Cincinnati chili), or be a recognized landmark (say, the now-gone Organ Grinder Restaurant). What say everyone else? Establish a policy now, or should I just start nominating articles about restaurants, arguing that a restaurant needs more than a review in a local publication? -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In my view, restaurant reviews that are WP:ROUTINE and lack WP:SIGCOV may not establish notability, but I'm not convinced this isn't already the case under the existing policy regime. I agree with you that restaurants that have a cultural relevance and are local landmarks should have articles, but possibly not any restaurant that has 3 reviews, since that's a good portion of non-notable restaurants. I think it's kind of similar to reviews of other media like movies or albums. A standard interview which is fluffy doesn't necessarily do much. Andre🚐 19:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
See WP:CORP, and more specifically WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Wracking talk! 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that it's a problem area. And I think that what is implied in WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS conflicts with or undermines with the main criteria of WP:CORP. IMO coverage/rating of current food, service, decor etc. is inherently not in-depth coverage. WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS sort of implies the opposite....that if it's quality independent review for current food/service/decor that it's NCorp coverage. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What does "in-depth coverage" mean to you? If someone writes thousands of words about the food, service, and decor for a restaurant, going into great detail about it, is that not in-depth coverage? There are whole books written on the interior design of restaurants, and I've seen scholarly articles on the decor in specific restaurants.
I wonder if you meant something more like "coverage of aspects of the restaurant that seem encyclopedic, like its history" rather than "in-depth". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Why would coverage of food, service, decor be inherently not in-depth when it comes to a restaurant? I mean, I'd ideally like to see something about other things too -- the chef's vision, relevant history, etc. -- but it's a restaurant. It serves food in a place. Of course we're talking about those things when we talk about it. Valereee (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Being in part of a swath of routine restaurant reviews conducted periodically in Foods section shouldn't be used for establishing notability even if they're in the NY Times, which has such sections. The proliferation of articles on currently active restaurants of questionable broader notability is getting out of hand. Same with bars, venues and record labels. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Newspapers routinely publish reviews of local restaurants whether the without regard to their importance. These reviews are (IMHO & bluntly) somewhere between space fillers, fluff, & free advertising. In most cases, the critical fact is whether a given eatery is even reviewed because no medium is going to publish a bad restaurant review -- & alienate a possible advertiser -- if possible. (One might appear if the reviewer has enough of a reputation to write critically about a place, or the restaurant poses some kind of danger & the public needs to know about it. But I'm not going to consider a review that describes the chicken parmesan as "overdone" a reliable source establishing notability.)
My concern is that a restaurant review can be equated to a book review -- although a book reviewer (1) will only review a book she/he considers notable, & (2) is free to write honestly & objectively about the book. If a restaurant review provides more about the backstory of a restaurant -- say it is run by a restaurateur of some repute, thus being part of a collection of achievements -- then it would be useful. But that source would need to be used to substantiate that. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I think a review must be characterized to determine whether it is routine or significant. A 1 or 3 paragraph blurb is clearly neither, but a 3 page spread is. Andre🚐 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Newspapers write them, because they want contents beyond news that give reasons for readers to buy/subscribe. Although, it's not intended to be used to establish notability for the reviewed restaurants. Graywalls (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
A book isn't inherently local like a restaurant is. So coverage in multiple newspaper or magazine review sections, including at least some that weren't local to the author or subject, I'd accept as supporting a claim to notability. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Re no medium is going to publish a bad restaurant review...bad reviews are published regularly. Ask Lucinda O'Sullivan. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
It might be true that a small-town newspaper is unlikely to run an unfavorable restaurant review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
IMO no reviews local to the restaurant itself should contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It is also a common mistake made by authors to think that a notable review-writer makes the review notable. IMHO, that is not the case due to WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly WP:COI might also be an issue, regarding to the writers of those reviews. The Banner talk 21:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Llywrch, that typically means there's an editor or group of editors in your local area who are counting coverage in a source local to that restaurant but which is a source considered regional for most subjects -- The Oregonian, for example -- as support for notability for restaurants physically located within its typical dining coverage georgraphical area. There've been ongoing discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_24#NCORP_and_The_Oregonian Valereee (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Another another problem I've seen is the creation of articles based on historic significance of building or the past business, then hinging off of it to make it significantly about the current restaurant.Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS has some good thoughts in it for somewhere other than Wikipedia....sort of defining how meaningful a review is, but it is not relevant to Wikipedia and certainly not relevant to this guideline. IMO it should be modified to say that reviews that cover (only) review type topics (current food, service, decor etc) do not count towards wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Even a mention of it can be problematic. What I am seeing sometimes is the creation of article on the basis of building notability, then, shoehorning the current tenant's business into it that would otherwise not qualify as notable and linking the current tenant/usage as the "official website" causing it to get PR benefit. I think encyclopedic purpose can be accomplished while denying commercial benefit by leaving current usage generic, for example, now the building is occupied by restaurants and shops" unless those shops/restaurants are notable on their own right for the history/heritage on its own rather than simply being in a notable building. Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
True, but I think that that is a different topic because it deals with content of an article rather than wp:notability of the building article. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen a number of examples where the notability of the building/national historic registry status of the building is used as an anchor point so that an article can be made for the purpose of creating a canvas to write about the current restaurant. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Coatrack articles? It can be a problem to have an article ostensibly about a historic building that is almost entirely about the current use of the historic building. OTOH, every article about an existing historic building ought to say something about it's current use, so you shouldn't just remove all mention of the business/other current users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
It could be done so in a way that serves comparable encyclopedic benefit while minimizing commercial benefit. For example, it could be said "a convenience store" rather than "Bob and Mary's town's fine cigar & snack". Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that "minimizing commercial benefit" is one of Wikipedia's goals. I think we shouldn't care about commercial effects at all.
If a reader is trying to remember the name of that restaurant they all went to when they were in college, then we've done them a disservice by omitting it. If, on the other hand, the restaurant changes owners/names frequently, then we could do them a disservice by giving them an irrelevant or outdated name. A fear that someone might make a tiny amount of money is not an encyclopedic reason for a content decision. We should be making our choice based on the content (e.g., name a restaurant that was in that building for decades; omit a restaurant's name if it's only the latest in a string of failed ventures). And I want to emphasize that we are often talking about a tiny bit of money. Starbucks (the corporate headquarters) reportedly made $24 billion dollars last year, but they also reportedly sold more than 2 billion cups of coffee. If that represents 2 billion customers/visits, then that means that picking up one new customer/visit might give them $10 in profits a year (including a fair proportion of other products). In my area, that $10 will buy about 10 minutes of someone washing the dishes, or if it's used to increase the dividend, each of the 1.1 billion shares might get almost as much as an extra one millionth of a penny. This is not material. It literally doesn't matter to anyone. We should not really be worried that someone might see the name of a restaurant in Wikipedia (median page views for local businesses and historic buildings are really low – I just checked 10, and the median page views per day was just one) and go to the restaurant and place an order that would earn the owners a few pennies, or even a couple of dollars. This is not a logical fear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the Michelin star used as a presumptive notability in some articles even if it's one sentence. Such as "ABC Restaurnat is a Michelin 3 star restaurant in Los Angeles" as the only contents. I think it should be held to NCORP standards and not simply assume having a Michelin star guarantees article inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the WP:AUD section of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is a useful tool in deterring creation of articles about run-of-the-mill local restaurants. In my view, if a restaurant has been widely reviewed by reliable sources published hundreds or thousands of miles away, that is a strong indication of notability. Local reviews, not so much. For example, I an the main author of Whoa Nellie Deli, a restaurant in a remote part of California which has been reviewed by many reliable sources nationwide. As for restaurants located in historic buildings, I agree that the primary focus ought to be on the building rather than the current business operating there. For example, I wrote Cayetano Juarez Adobe about a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The article is primarily about the building, although I briefly mention the past and present restaurants that operated in that building. I believe that the current use of historic buildings is encyclopedic information. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Even such a review "published hundreds or thousands of miles away" may not meet the standard for notability, IMHO. I'm thinking of a local meat market that was reviewed twice by Guy Fieri, & I'm hesitant about creating an article about it. (But then, I was very hesitant about creating an article on a local businessman -- Andrew Wiederhorn -- until I saw that the Wall Street Journal had an article about him on their front page. I'm that cautious about notability.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Llywrch, if the meat market was reviewed by three culinary experts comparable to Fieri, I would have no problem with it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Same. If Fieri covered it twice, it's quite likely notable. I'd prefer to see two instances of non-local coverage from different sources, but I'm willing to flex a bit on that. What I take issue with is coverage only in sources published in the same town as the restaurant is in, even if that source does cover news outside of town and is therefore generally considered statewide or regional. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't matter what I think for said meat market already has an article, which actually does a good job of showing it is notable. (Although that article lacks Fieri's quotable quote calling that store "a Disneyland for meatlovers".) But if that article didn't exist, I wouldn't bother to create it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328, if you check the NCORP talk archives apparently "local news" in AUD doesn't mean "news local to the subject" but rather "news that doesn't get distributed regionally". So a review of a Winnipeg restaurant in a Sydney-only newspaper doesn't count, but a review in a Winnipeg newspaper that also happens to cover topics in Brandon, MB would. JoelleJay (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
JoelleJay, that makes absolutely no sense to me. What the heck is a "Sydney-only newspaper" anyway? Is there some type of law in Australia that a newspaper published in Sydney cannot be sold or read in Illowara or Wollongong or even Perth? If so, what is the penalty? I live in California yet read the New York Times and the Washington Post every day, even though they are published nearly 3000 miles away. Every newspaper I have ever read or subscribed to encourages subscribers from everywhere. I place more weight on major daily newspapers and magazines with a national circulation than on small town weeklies or local penny savers, but I think that approach is shared by most experienced editors. And when it comes to restaurants, I think that a more expensive reading of AUD is a useful tool, but an overly constrictive reading does a disservice to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328, for me the crucial understandings are that
  1. restaurants are inherently local businesses
  2. nearly every newspaper in a town of any size covers its local dining scene regularly, which often means 50+ reviews a year, every year for the past 5-7 decades.
The NYT is a national newspaper, but it only covers restaurants outside of NYC and its suburbs that it believes are worth a trip, or at least a visit/a stop if you're in/driving through that town. When the NYT covers a Chicago or Cleveland or even Buffalo restaurant, that is support for a claim of notability. When it covers a Brooklyn restaurant, not so much. Valereee (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, I agree with you that the NYT is a newspaper of national circulation and importance, and international reputation. Why, then, should we say that its significant coverage of a restaurant in Brooklyn counts for nothing toward notability, just because the words "New York" appear in its name? Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Like other newspapers, the New York Times covers topics that its readership are interested in reading about, without regard to their degree of encyclopedic significance. Thus its local area coverage will cover, for instance, local high school students. The purpose of the coverage should be evaluated to determine its suitability for demonstrating that English Wikipedia's standards for having an article are met, even for newspapers with sterling reputations. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cullen328, it doesn't count nothing toward notability. But look at its dining section. It covers primarily restaurants within the greater metro area, just like nearly every other paper in the country. For restaurants, I want to also see at least some coverage outside its local area. Syracuse, Albany, Philadelphia, Hartford...I'm not picky. Or a JBAward, or Michelin/Mobil stars, or mentions or multiple national best-ofs, or coverage by Fieri or Bourdain or whatever. But if the NYT, which does restaurant reviews primarily in the city and its suburbs (and other local sources) are the only sources covering it, I don't think it proves that restaurant is notable. The fact the NYT is the newspaper of record doesn't mean every restaurant (or bar or bakery or dry cleaners or any other inherently local business) that they cover is notable simply because its local paper is the NYT. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Why should local news in a newspaper of national circulation be elevated above local news reported anywhere else? What makes the number of potential readers override the "routineness" or "locals-only interest" of a report?
Coverage of local content, because it's local content, shouldn't count regardless of how esteemed a newspaper is. JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In general I agree. If the NYT ran an article like One of America’s best sushi restaurants is in Omaha. Yes, Omaha. about a NYC restaurant that -- while in the food section -- is a feature article, not just a review, I'd be totally willing to be persuaded this wasn't simply local coverage. But a typical dining review about a restaurant most of their readers can easily drive to is local coverage, even from the NYT. Valereee (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
As I have said before:
The New York Times publishes 365 days per year. There are 11,500 restaurants in that city.[5] They would have to run more than 30 restaurant reviews per issue to cover all of them. They can't; they don't. They selectively pick and choose the ones to cover. That's what we're hoping for in a source: the ones that reliable sources voluntarily select for coverage. They're not being paid for it; they're not indiscriminately filling space; they're talking about the ones that they believe are "noteworthy".
Contrast that with the small town where I went to college. They have (or had, when decades ago when I was a student) a twice-weekly newspaper. There are 39 restaurants in town.[6] Running just one review per issue, they could review all of them twice a year and still have twelve weeks leftover for the neighboring towns. Taking each restaurant in turn just because you can is indiscriminate, and it is not what we're looking for.
Of course, if someone is capable of telling us which of the tiny fraction of restaurants in NYC the NYT covers "because it's local", and which ones they cover "because it's actually noteworthy" and just coincidentally happens to be in one of the best cities in the world for restaurants, then that might be valuable. But I doubt that any Wikipedia editor can do that. In the meantime, if, in the course of a year, a national newspaper is covering less than a few percent of the restaurants in its home market, I think we can assume that whatever it publishes indicates notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
WaId, to that I'd answer: if it's a notable restaurant, sources outside the local area will also review it. People drive or even fly to cities for a long weekend to do three restaurants, and the newspapers in Albany and Philly know this and publish reviews of NYC restaurants. An NYT review isn't negligible. It simply isn't proof of notability all by itself. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, the CoC source is picking up a lot of non-restaurants in its list -- 4/10 on the first page are things like a "casket emporium" and plumbers. If the CoC blurb is using its own website to count the number of NYC restaurants, I'd say that number is way off. Oh and it's also considering the "megalopolis" of NY rather than the city itself, which adds another 11 million people to the population. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe that articles in any single periodical is proof of notability "all by itself", but we have editors here who are saying that the NYT review should not be counted at all merely because of the geographical coincidence of a national newspaper being headquartered in the same city as the restaurant being covered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
But an NYT review is functionally operating as "proof of notability all by itself", because it would count as the "non-local" review when coupled with something in a hyperlocal Upper Manhattan newspaper. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, who is saying the NYT review should not be counted at all merely because of the geographical coincidence of a national newspaper being headquartered in the same city as the restaurant being covered? Valereee (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how generally true this is about the New York Times. Many articles in its travel section have a highly promotional tone, enough that personally I wouldn't be comfortable with a blanket statement and would evaluate the suitability of any cited article on its individual merits. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that "source takes a dispassionate tone towards the subject" is anywhere on the list of qualities that make up a reliable source. It's the Wikipedia article, not the sources cited in in, that needs to be neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that a dispassionate tone was required for a reliable source, and promotional content can be used to cite facts in a Wikipedia article. However to demonstrate that a subject has met English Wikipedia's standards for having an article, there should be some significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources. I'm not saying that no New York Times article can be used for this purpose; I just wouldn't make a blanket statement that they all can. isaacl (talk)
You didn't say that a dispassionate tone was required, but you do say that there should be some significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional sources. One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others)? How are we not requiring a dispassionate tone if sources that an individual editor believes to accuses of having a promotional tone don't count towards notability?
A year or so ago, another editor and I went six rounds on this subject, and one thing we learned is that "promotional tone" is the house style for some reputable publications. If we reject "promotional tone", we're rejecting sources from whole fields of media. A wine magazine that talks about how bad the wine is, or a travel magazine that tells you all the things wrong with a restaurant, will not stay in business. Also, there are risks around systemic bias. What's "promotional" by some culture's standards is just everyday normal in cultures where Everything Is Awesome. Or consider the situation in Thailand, where leaving a bad review for a business is effectively illegal.[1][2] We should assume that not merely individual tourists, but also Thai journalists don't want to go to prison just for the sake of reporting a problem at a business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You claimed I said something about reliable sources in general. I am only referring to sources that are being used to demonstrate that English Wikipedia's standards for having an article are met. And my comments are in context of the need to evaluate individual articles and not make blanket statements about publications. I feel like you are reading things into my statements that I'm not saying. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Does a 3 star rating come with a write up in the Michelin’s guide? Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
All restaurants that get even a single star get a write up in the corresponding Michelin Guide. In my experience, the vast majority of Michelin starred restaurants are obviously notable because they receive in-depth coverage in many reliable sources nationally and often world wide. Cullen328 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Still no excuse to spawn a one sentence stub into the article space with presumptive "sources exist". Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If we applied that logic to the other SNGs, we'd have to gut a lot of articles.
Instead, what may be needed, if there is a long-term problem with stubby restaurant articles is to do what NSPORT has done, that besides just meeting the basic SNG allowance, that there still must be at least one secondary-source that is above and beyond the SNG requirement to show that further notability is likely. In the case of restaurants, just having the Michelin star mention wouldn't not be enough but a restaurant review that is clearly within what AUD would prefer should also be present. Masem (t) 01:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, if you give me the title of any one sentence article about a Michelin 3 star restaurant, I will happily expand that article based on multiple high quality sources, and I assure you that it will be both easy and fun to do. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I might've exaggerated a bit to say one sentence/three star. Smyth_(restaurant) is pretty darn close with two sentences. Goosefoot (Chicago restaurant) comes close. There's exactly one sentence that's about the restaurant. Two, if you count "restaurant is BYOB". The other are about nearby stores that isn't about restaurant. There are quite a few one/two sentence starred restaurant listings if you look in the category List of Michelin starred restaurants in _____ . Graywalls (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, it took me less than one minute to find this extremely detailed article about Chicago's Goosefoot in a Texas publication, far from local. And there is plenty of in-depth coverage in Chicago area publications. Add that to what's already in the article and notability is clearly established. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
And what do you know, Graywalls, here is detailed coverage of Smyth in a national publication. See, I told you that Michelin starred restaurants are almost inevitably notable, which can be seen if people look for sources instead of complaining that an article is too short and therefore the restaurant must not be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If I felt they lacked notability, I would have AfD'd them.. however, when company connected and their public relations agents start to create poorly sourced articles knowing "sources" exist, I think we have a problem here. Those articles should not come into article space so readily. Graywalls (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
What makes you think that these articles were created by the businesses or their agents? Do you have any evidence? It's unfortunately common for editors who deal with COI for a while to see COI problems behind every edit, or to think that I personally wouldn't bother creating an article on this subject unless I was being paid for it, so that proves the person who did create it is being paid, but that's not evidence, and it's frequently wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Blueboar, the bigger point with Michelin-starred restaurants is that when a restaurant earns a star, it gets reviewed by all sorts of sources. The local newspaper will celebrate it; the regional newspapers will report it; the business papers will talk about the revenue model; the food magazines will write about it. While an article about chef who wins a Michelin star, or a subsequent restaurant started/worked for by that chef, is not necessarily kept, it is extremely unusual for a Michelin-starred restaurant to be deleted (AFAIK, only one ever has been: a Hungarian restaurant that was deleted last year. I suspect that if we had Hungarian-speaking foodies on wiki, better sources would have been found). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Restaurants that meet the GNG are notable and entitled to articles providing no NOT criteria apply. Remember, N is positionally superior to NCORP, so N can be met by GNG for any establishment, no matter what NCORP claims for its own authority. This has been pointed out, by me, multiple times previously and yet no one has successfully aligned N with what NCORP says about itself. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NCORP was created to specifically address advertorial editing and if you look at various discussions, there's general consensus that NCORP applies to articles on companies, especially those in the subject area susceptible to public relations professional editing. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NCORP is stricter than GNG. I think the clear problem here having participated in a few restaurant AfDs is that we do a really bad job of identifying when coverage is routine, and articles are often kept because participants think getting a review in the local paper is significant coverage because - and this is a argument I've seen quite a bit - the local paper has a regional audience per AUD. I'd go so far to say that no restaurant review could possibly lend itself to notability, that notable restaurants will have been written about significantly for other reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 06:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NCORP isn't stricter than GNG, it merely describes what GNG is for corporations. It guides you on what actually is considered independent and significant in this area and what is not. JoelleJay (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NCORP never says that it interprets the GNG for corporations, instead saying the criteria generally ... follow the General Notability Guidelines... SportingFlyer T·C 07:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer, I kind of feel like you're leaving out the most important parts. What it says is These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources...the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources... (Emphasis mine.) It's a higher standard than GNG. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I would say it's a higher standard than what most editors use as GNG for other topics in general. But I read SIRS as purely a subject-specific clarifier of the expectations we have for the four elements of GNG (plus some elements of NOTNEWS) as applied to corporations. Most regular editors understand that for a source to count towards GNG, it must be all of secondary, independent, reliable, and SIGCOV. But what independent coverage looks like and how careful you have to be in identifying it, and what is considered routine per NOTNEWS, will vary between disciplines. NCORP simply explains how to do this for businesses. JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Routine isn't referenced in the GNG. Routine coverage can absolutely be significant, reliable, and independent. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This is exactly why we have WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 07:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, but not all routine coverage is ROUTINE coverage, is it? ROUTINE cites specific examples that are substantially more banally mundane than restaurant reviews. Restaurant health inspection reports, on the other hand would be routine ROUTINE in my local paper. Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
... and wait a minute, ROUTINE is part of NEVENT, so unless we're trying to write an article about a particular restaurant review (seems unlikely but not impossible), ROUTINE doesn't even apply. That is, even events that are covered by ROUTINE could constitute appropriate notability support for an article on a different topic. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Just because "routine" is tied to events (this is in WP:N) doesn't mean it is limited to events. Routine coverage of any topic is generally not considered part of evaluating notability. For example, nearly every player that touches the field during a non-playoff/championship game will get some mention even if just in a box score. Coverage of individual games is considered routine, so those articles do not contribute to notability of the players, nor of the individual game itself. The DNA of "routine coverage is not considered part of notability" is in WP:N, just not expressly written that way. Masem (t) 13:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
It is actually written, but not as "routine" but rather as SIGCOV. Anything that may be characterized as "routine" but still is SIGCOV absolutely counts towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Nope, not according to NOTNEWS: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. This applies to all articles. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem that CORP articles get with "routine" is that we have some editors who believe that "routine" includes all basic information ("General Hospital is a hospital in the General metropolitan area") and others who believe that any source that contains any information about a "routine" item is tainted and unworthy.
This, though, I think is a problem with the lack of a shared understanding, rather than a problem with the advice we intend to be communicating. We don't want to claim notability when there is a truly routine and brief announcement of a corporate merger, but when the sources merely mention a merger in passing while primarily discussing non-routine things, or if the sources go into great depth about a particular corporate merger (there are whole books written about the AOL Time Warner merger; that is not "routine" by any stretch of the imagination), then that's coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" but not "routine coverage". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm just disputing the claim that "routine" considerations can't be applied to anything except events. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The section you're quoting is from NOTNEWS, under the lead text Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. which limits the applicability of the text you quote to events only, not establishments like restaurants. Also problematic is that NOT text only applies to topics that are already notable--else there would be no reason to exclude them from the encyclopedia since they would not rise to the level of inclusion in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
NOTNEWS absolutely does not apply only to events, neither textually nor in practice. "News reports" opens with Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. The list of topics that might receive routine news coverage includes events and other things as distinct entries, and points to the additional ROUTINE guidance available for events: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, amend my prior to read to events and BLPs, not establishments like restaurants. Now, how does that change the implications of what I said with respect to restaurants? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The list of examples includes more than just people and events and is not meant to be exhaustive. It should be clear that this applies to all topics, which is indeed how it is interpreted at AfD/AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't be the first time a policy, guideline, or essay was used wrong consistently. INDISCRIMINATE and TNT come to mind. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage rejects "routine coverage", and some editors at AFD interpret that rather broadly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Jclemens is arguing that that guidance at NCORP can be ignored due to the "GnG oR sNg" clause in N and his belief that neither N/GNG nor policy prohibit routine coverage being used to establish notability of non-event, non-BLP topics. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
A bit different in tone than I would pose it, but that's a fair summary of the two key points: 1) SNGs can specify all they want, but any topic that meets GNG is still notable, and 2) ROUTINE or "routine" coverage is not precluded from contributing to notability per se. The relevant test in the GNG is significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The first appearance of "routine" in WP:NOT was in 2007, with the addition of Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. as a result of this discussion on "tabloid news". News is by definition coverage of "events" related to people or buildings or concepts or..., and this is saying that such "events" are rarely encyclopedic enough for that material to be included in the encyclopedia at all, let alone as the basis of an article. You first suggested that However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. means the scope of NOTNEWS is limited only to standalone articles on events, then amended this to events "and BLPs" due to the presence of Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. So why not amend it again to all topics due to the presence of For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, and the reference to WP:ROUTINE, which treat "events" as only one of several topic examples that can receive routine coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to start an RFC, which I expect I would oppose, to make such an amendment. The reason I oppose it is that I perceive no problem that needs solving with the addition of such an expectation, and anticipate more problems from those seeking to exclude topics that would be considered unencyclopedic under such a new guideline. That is, I believe such an amendment would be a net negative for Wikipedia, and hence oppose it, because it is open to interpretation: since book reviews are published weekly by major newspapers, are they ROUTINE as well? While I acknowledge the unrelenting anti-commercialism that necessarily pervades any free and open access project like Wikipedia, NCORP is a pestilence that deserves to be contained at every turn in that it declares some topics more equal than others. The logical end of such discrimination, even against the hated capitalist interests that might possibly promote material as COI, is a betrayal of the fundamental goals of Wikipedia. You can't deliver a volunteer-led project like this if you actively punish people who like niche topics and seek to thwart their good-faith efforts. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and AUD is part of NCORP, so that part of the above argument appears self-referential. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
SportingFlyer that was my concern which led me to start this thread: how can one determine if a source satisfies the requirement for notability? Obviously a source can be reliable for specific details about a subject while at the same time not useful for confirming its notability. (A non-restaurant example is an article I'm wrestling with at the moment: a WWII battle that has been effectively ignored by Wikipedia -- beyond not having an article -- but having been the subject of 5 or 6 books. I need to have a suitable source to convince the skeptical that it was notable, & not just a "minor" conflict.) A local newspaper review can confirm details about a given restaurant, but IMHO something more is needed to confirm it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
So go change N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. is very clear that any topic that meets the GNG and not NOT is entitled to an article. All the LOCALCONSENSUS among like-minded editors opining on corporations and RFCs on similar or closely related topics don't mean anything if a change to N to match the supposed consensus won't stick. That is, I don't doubt you (and other like-minded editors) believe that you're correct, but until and unless a change to N is put through, I don't believe such consensus truly exists. That is, a change to N that forces otherwise disinterested editors to deal with carve-outs where SNGs preclude the GNG from applying (rather than merely describing how to apply it) is unprecedented and cannot simply be assumed on the basis of other discussions of less universal scope and interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
We've had this discussion (in large scale) a few years ago in hashing out the wording of the WP:SNG, which does include that NCORP is stricter in terms of sourcing requirements than the GNG. NCORP doesn't say that the GNG doesn't apply to business-related topics, but that the sources that would be required under the GNG should be clearly independent, etc. etc., for the GNG to be applicable. Masem (t) 13:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree that NCORP sets a sourcing requirement for applying GNG. Folks saying that only a more explicit structural statement to that effect would make it so are unrealistic with regards to how wikipedia notability is (not) structured. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Since it was brought up earlier, let's pick on AUD. Does AUD exist elsewhere or apply to non-CORP notability? No, it does not; the closest I can think of is WP:GEOSCOPE in NEVENT, but even then the focus on the demonstration of the topic's significance, rather than the wholesale elimination of smaller periodicals from consideration. A profile in a local newspaper counts as a source for a BLP... but not for a corporation? Exactly whom are we protecting from what here? What's more disappointing is that the arguments that NCORP requirements don't exceed the GNG, just define acceptable sources more precisely, are apparently made in good faith. Please, folks, take a step back and look at them: they're not just a separate-but-equal set of sourcing guidelines, but an entirely different and more stringent set of expectations. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jclemens: Thanks for the post which was indented under mine. I think that your post is more about the mere concept of a tougher standard for businesses whereas my post was about the interaction between that extant SNG standard and GNG evaluations. On the former, my opinion is that in the context of how the big fuzzy wikpedia notability ecosystem works that the tougher standard for NCorp is a good idea as is letting it affect GNG evaluations. I'd have to write a huge post to explain that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
AUD (which I created) is an attempt to introduce a somewhat more level playing field across media markets. We can expect the biggest newspaper in a given city, whether that's a huge metropolis or a small town, to write about the mayor of that city. All the mayors get covered, so that's reasonably fair.
But the biggest newspapers are not equally likely to write about a local business. Basically equivalent local businesses, merely by the happenstance of being located in a bigger or smaller media market, have hundred-fold differences in the chance that they will be covered by the biggest newspaper in their local city. WhatamIdoing's Gas Station will be a notable and valued part of the business community in a tiny town, with a front-page photo and long article, but the same business will be unremarked upon in a large city. This does not seem fair; therefore, we have tried to make things a little more fair, largely by excluding small businesses that get coverage from indiscriminate sources (e.g., sources that cover every gas station in town). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem with this though is that even major papers for major cities have indiscriminate articles about restaurants as part of their local coverage. I think that's one of the major sources of conflict here and if you look at some of the restaurant articles which have no consensused at AfD, that's the major issue. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's a really important point. Even if there are only 35 (or 10) actually notable restaurants in NYC this year, they're reviewing 52 because they have to feed the beast. Valereee (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I think your estimate of the number of notable restaurants in NYC is off by two or three orders of magnitude. Seriously, this is probably why we're having this back-and-forth, because people's understanding of the sum total of notable human knowledge varies so greatly. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right: People have really, wildly different ideas of what belongs. Major papers in large cities don't write about any restaurant, and they definitely don't write about all of them. They're always picking and choosing. They might review 52 a year, but that doesn't mean that any of those 52 are unworthy of their time, money, effort, and space. As for whether there could be "only 35 (or 10) actually notable restaurants", from our perspective, once a subject has received attention from the world at large, then it's WP:Notable – regardless of whether the subject is something editors would consider a "worthy" subject like the history of a city, or an "unworthy" subject, like an internet meme, a Playboy Bunny, or a restaurant in a single location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
A restaurant that has even one detailed review from outside its local area is quite likely notable. A restaurant that has three Michelin stars or a 5-star Mobil review is quite likely notable. A restaurant that has won a James Beard Award is quite likely notable. A restaurant that has appeared on multiple national best-of lists is quite likely notable. None of that means we should create a stub based on that one single marker of likely-notability. It means it should be easy to find actual NCORP-level support for notability if we bother to look for it. It tells me, when I'm wondering if I should create the article, that I likely am not wasting my time. Valereee (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
A restaurant with Michelin star is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Usually, they have already ample coverage but after the awarding of a star a tsunami of media attention follows. But writing an article of the type "restaurant X has one/two/three Michelin star(s)" is not giving the restaurant the credits/notability it deserves. I hope I never did that. (If so, I probably improved the article soon after.) The Banner talk 13:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if you have ever perused an actual hard-copy Michelin Guide. They give all *** places a very long and detailed review that is based on several visits and impeccably independent, far more so than most presss coverage, which is often tied up with advertising. That in itself goes most of the way to notability - it is pretty hard to imagine one that was not notable. A single * is rather different. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Would not the obvious answer be, If we can only write a few lines, it ain't notable? Notability means it has received significant (and pretty much long-term) coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  • No, we do not need to be in the business of making an SNG for every possible category of subject. The existing SNGs are already fairly arbitrary and condemn new editors to a million pages of required reading before they can hope to contribute to something like AfD. The WP:CREEP is already bad enough and we can at the very least try to stop the bleeding. If you have enough stuff to write an actual article without violating things like V and RS then the subject is notable. That's GNG in a nutshell. We don't need a million arguments about whether something truly counts as historical. GMGtalk 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Restaurants obviously span a wide range of notability from nondescript fast-food branches to famous destinations like The Fat Duck. Each case therefore has to be judged on its merits. The archetypal article about such a place is Mzoli's which was created by Jimbo Wales. Revisiting that now, it's sad to see that it closed during the pandemic. This is a common fate of restaurants as they often have a short lifetime. If you find a good one then be sure to take a picture while you can! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO there is a narrower topic which is a lot simpler than the broad topics being discussed here. The overall SNG guideline requires GNG sources that meet the NCORP standard. The section in question –implicitly conflicts with that. Should we change the section in question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"[..] Wikipedia should not be a restaurant guide". Why not? If the subject passes WP:GNG then it passes GNG. We don't endless amounts of SNG's because someone doesn't think a particular subject should have articles. Alvaldi (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting a particular subject shouldn't have articles. I write articles about notable restaurants regularly. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that only about 1% of restaurants would truly pass wp:GNG 1% is not much of a restaurant guide.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
We also say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a gazetteer, a genealogy, or a newspaper -- & yet, we do have articles in those areas. The difference is that each of those is inclusive, that those reference works will include one-sentence entries about obscure items with the goal of covering everything in its purview; Wikipedia is selective, meaning that we use a criteria (more or less objectively) to determine whether we should have an article about it. And just because a given restaurant has multiple fluffy reviews about it should not be good grounds for an article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Although I personally tend to be on the "selective" side where CORP is concerned, I don't think that selectivity is a trait valued by all of our editors, and I'm pretty sure it's not valued by any of our readers. No reader has ever complained that Wikipedia had an article on the subject they were searching for, and that we shouldn't have. (We do get complaints about insufficient and incorrect articles, but never about the existence of articles that the reader wanted to know more about.)
I think, as @Slatersteven said above, that we should consider not having articles when it's actually impossible to write more than a few sentences (as opposed to articles for which I wrote a few sentences and stopped, even though I could have written more). That's the point behind WP:WHYN. But I think that when it's possible to write a fully policy-compliant article (e.g., most of the information comes from multiple independent sources), there are at least some editors, and many readers, who don't seen any reason why we shouldn't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually people do complain all the time that there's an article about X but not about Y. When probably neither of them is notable. Valereee (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Before I started really editing Wikipedia, my biggest two complaints were: 1. "Random article" is terrible because 90% of the time it's a useless stub on a sportsperson, species, or populated place; and 2. Browsing biography categories to learn about the most important representatives of a group (e.g. the subjects I would expect in an encyclopedia) is utterly useless because it means clicking through hundreds of pages trying to find the ones on someone whose work has actually been highly influential. This was deeply frustrating at the time because I was hoping to use WP as both a filter and source to find weighty references for certain subjects, and it really fails at this. JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Have you looked at WP:VA? Would that have helped your second issue if it had been more prominent? Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, the people complaining that there is an article about X but not Y are complaining about the absence of the article on Y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: For the record, what started this thread was my concern about the existence of an article about X, & not knowing how to distinguish it from Y which did not have an article, & Z which did & believed deserved an article. IMHO, the usual response when X shouldn't have an article because Y does is to resort to WP:AfD. -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
If the editor believes that neither X (existing) nor Y (non-existing) should have an article, then taking X to AFD is the common route.
If the editor believes that Y (non-existing) should have an article, then "But there's an article about X, so we need to create one about Y, too!" is common – common enough that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? was in the first version of that page, back in 2006. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
We already have a place to get un-selective info, it's called the internet. The many types of selectivity (coverage, content etc.) of an enclyclopedia add value and true information. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I just browsed a streaming service and came across the show The Bear. I didn't know what to expect and so was interested to find that it was inspired by a real restaurant, Mr. Beef. It seems that this place has been quite famous for many years but it didn't get an article until the TV show appeared. Places with character like this make great articles for Wikipedia in my experience and there still seems to be quite a lot of untapped potential. So, we have our work cut out for us and, per WP:CREEP, we already have more than enough rules getting in the way.
What's also interesting about this show is that most everyone seems to be in a rage all the time. Perhaps that's the show's dramatic angle or maybe it's some kinda Gordon Ramsay schtick. But here at Wikipedia, we ought to be more mellow and relaxed, right? We don't need intense drama about these issues because it's not that big a deal.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability of stats-only articles that aren't identified as "list" articles

WP:notability doesn't give much guidance on list articles. Which sort of puts them in the much more lenient twilight zone. In New Page Patrol work I see the following situation very often. In essence, a "stats only" article where I wonder if it should be given the more lenient treatment of a list article. I see it most often in (zillions of) sports articles, but also in politics and other articles. Here are some examples of the types:

  1. "Participation in the upcoming xyz sports competition"
  2. "Results of 2021 xyz election"
  3. "The xyz team in the 2021 season abc league competition"

In each example case, there is a perfunctory opening sentence and after that it is just a big "stats/list -only" set of tables or lists. In each case, it is sort of a "derived topic" where there is not GNG coverage of the derived topic per se. So for #1 there is no GNG coverage of "Participation in the upcoming xyz sports competition" But usually the "next level up" (e.g. "the xyz sports competition" for #1, the "xyz" election for #2) would pass as wp:notable. And there is non-GNG sourcing (e.g. databases or routine coverage) for inclusion in the stats. And for my example cases, there is nothing in an SNG that blesses it. And it's a very big detailed list that is too big and too detailed to merge into the "next level up" article. I don't see any provision under GNG or SNG's which passes these. But lots do get passed. IMO it's because they sort of get the more lenient non-standard of list articles. In short, where there is no coverage per se of the wiki-editor derived topic.

Do we want these articles in Wikipedia? If so, what would the basis be for passing them at NPP? Should we amend this guideline to officially say that articles like this can get the more lenient treatment of list articles? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the first ("Participation in the upcoming xyz sports competition") mean something like "List of countries expected to compete in the future Olympics"? And the third ("The xyz team in the 2021 season abc league competition") is something like a team roster?
I'd expect "Results of 2021 xyz election" to be merged up to the larger article on "2021 xyz election", but if they needed to WP:SPLIT it off for WP:SIZE or other similarly practical reasons, then why shouldn't we have it? Nobody's going to argue that the election is notable but the results should be omitted from Wikipedia. If the complaint is that the election results are reported in too much detail ("Post-election analysis indicates that gray-haired ladies living on the sunny side of the street voted in the morning"), then that's a problem for WP:NPOVN, not for AFD.
I wonder if asking the question what would the basis be for passing them at NPP? is a sign of bigger problems. NPP is supposed to "pass" anything that doesn't qualify for CSD. AFC is supposed to accept anything that is WP:UNLIKELY to get deleted at AFD. Neither of them are not supposed to be saddled with gatekeeping the entire encyclopedia or enforcing a minimum standard. The basis for accepting articles is that you think that it's better to have a page on this subject than to not have a page on this subject. This is our long-standing policy.
(Do you remember the sting operation we ran more than a decade ago, to see what happened when experienced editors posted "typical newbie" articles on subjects whose notability they were reasonably certain of from new accounts, so their reputation wouldn't affect the result? Maybe we need to do that again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
On your two questions, a typical one would be a list of teams that are going to compete or list of games in a lower level competition and the 2021 would be a list of all of the games that they played that year and the scores.North8000 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that your "NPP is supposed to "pass" anything that doesn't qualify for CSD" is incorrect, but otherwise are with you in spirit on your overall post. "Criteria for a separate article to exist" includes wp:notability and that NPP'ers are supposed to be doing that evaluation. "Really meets wp:notability" is a higher bar than "likely to survive at AFD" and I think that experienced NPP'ers are confident enough to pass the articles that fail the former but pass the latter. And "it's better to have a page on this subject than to not have a page on this subject" is pretty subjective. If it's simply "that might be useful" then that removes the "we're an enclyclopedia" criteria plus any selectivity. But I think that your line of reasoning is a good one so the question becomes "do we want 99% "stats-only"" articles of the type described as my example?" I'm really fine with it either way, but from a NPP'er standpoint wish we had clarity on that. And it is prima facie a wp:notability question. I avoided real-world examples to avoid landing some editor's article on this high visibility page but maybe if I listed several of them it wouldn't be so bad in that respect. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"Really meets wp:notability" ought to be exactly the same as "survive at AFD". If it is notable, it should survive at AFD; if it's not, it shouldn't.
If any individual or group is demanding that articles be removed for reasons other than a likely deletion at AFD, then they are screwing up. Wikipedia is not meant to have a system in which editors say "My library has several books on this exact subject, but I declare the subject pseudo-non-notable and exclusion worthy because the current version is not up to my standard". "Really meets wp:notability" means complying with all those sections about not declaring a subject to be non-notable just because the article needs improving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, just about everything in your post is not what this is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia purity will kill us all. Some "matter of record" articles, such as opinion polling and election results, are spun out because SIZE and readability policy instructs us to do so. Statistics articles exist because encyclopedias should be matters of record. Trying to chop every branch of the Wikipedia tree baffles me, what exactly do purists want left? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Only pokemons, footballers, and Angelyne, I imagine. Although they did already get rid of most of the pokemons and are now working on the footballers. Maybe only Angelyne? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, here are some from the NPP que which have the attributes described in my examples. Hopefully by there being 6 I'm not attracting any awkward attention on any of them individually:

The question is: Should we clarify that these types of articles get the more lenient wp:notability treatment of list articles even though they are not explicitly list articles? North8000 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like my approach to such articles is often to tag them with {{notability}} and an edit summary to the effect that information about the topic needs reorganization, then mark approved. I can't even count how many times I've come across an article of this kind that, when I look to potentially WP:BLAR it, turns out to be tied to a main article whose sourcing is in even worse condition. Until someone with an eye for encyclopedic organization takes it upon themselves to rework the entire walled garden of information related to each of these topics, any attempt to pare back these less-than-notable lists is just going to result in a mess (and a lot of frustration) signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
If I were king, we'd tidy up the whole list article thing (which is weak and scattered amongst multiple policies/guidelines.) We'd acknowledge that list articles are "contrived/derived topic" articles and that the criteria for existence would be likelyhood that someone people might look for that grouping. Also also that it clearly passes wp:not; we're not a stats database. Then we'd acknowledge that these "stats only" articles are somewhat list articles and for the ones that don't pass wp:notability under the normal article criteria they would need to pass the list article criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The 1992 NSL Cup Final and 2023 Liga 3 West Java Series 1 are not list articles. The 1992 final wasn't super well attended but I would be surprised if it was not notable with extra sources, the 2023 Liga 3 may or may not be. Hockey transactions are something you would find in a specialised hockey encyclopedia so probably would deserve "special treatment" as long as that can be shown. The opinion polling pages could easily be up-merged. None of these make sense to me as a set of problematic list articles - they are all unique. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I gave these as mere illustrative of the question (or more specifically as mere attempted illustrations of the question) not as being problematic. I did say "I don't see any provision under GNG or SNG's which passes these." and my intent there included that there was no established GNG coverage coverage of the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
To add to the question, to what extent does, when, or should WP:SPINOUT apply to lists? Would, or should, the articles about polling inherit some of the notability of the parent article (1958 Canadian federal election or 1980 Canadian federal election). While those parent articles do not mention polling, there is a section about polls in 2020 United States presidential election. - Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I think those could easily be up-merged. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You touched on a whole 'nother area where reality violates prima facie wp:notability which is true sub articles. A simple common example is a separate discography article for a band which is a widely accepted and I think often good practice. There is no GNG coverage of the topic per se and so they technically violate wp:notability. One reason that they are widely accepted is that they are a sub-article of a notable band, although wp:notability does not exempt sub-articles. Another reason could be that they are actually somewhat list articles per my OP. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Thing is… “discography” is itself a notable topic… so there is some justification that a notable band’s discography is notable (being the intersection of two notable topics). This won’t be the case with a lot of other types of stats. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The 1992 NSL Cup Final will have sources like yearbooks and magazines from back in the day that will need to be found but it will pass GNG. 2023 Liga 3 may pass GNG as well but sources are in Indonesian so it's difficult to tell. The NHL Transactions one will need to be discussed with the project before sending to AfD, but that is information you would find in an encyclopedia in my book, and a quick search shows websites have also compiled this information and could meet NLIST. So I think the "doesn't meet GNG" premise isn't necessarily there... SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a tangent, but I need to clarify. My point was about a putative example where "there is not GNG coverage of the topic per se". The I made some links to try to illustrate the types of articles that might be involved. I was not saying anything about any of the articles individually. Maybe only a few of them are valid examples of my OP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
As I was saying above, why are you saying "I don't see any provision under GNG or SNG's which passes these", and not saying "I don't see any provision under GNG or SNG's which excludes these"?
Several of these look like articles belonging to a set. Maybe opinion polling wasn't actually a big deal in the 1958 Canadian federal elections (or maybe it was, and this was the year that all the news was abuzz about how pollsters started using these innovative telephone surveys), but if there's an article about the election before that and after that, then people kind of expect a matched set, rather than individually deciding that this election was worthy but that one wasn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that is the point of the question - on some level, the community expects to see certain articles (as you put it, complete sets) and as I (not eloquently), suggested some of these articles could be considered WP:SPINOUTS of existing articles (a list of mayors may be WP:UNDUE or become WP:TOOBIG in an article about a municipality). To me, accepting the fuzzy nature of our notability guidelines provides common sense about when a stand-alone article should be created. - Enos733 (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree both on the need for fuzziness (=another name for multi-variable weighted decisionmaking) and also for giving credit for being a sub-article when making wp:notability considerations. Unfortunately the latter does not exist in any guideline and we have too much fuzziness to the point where how wikipedia operates is often in direct conflict with the wp:notability guidelines. Witness above where one of the most expert and active NPP'ers says that learning to do the job often requires directly clearly violating wp:notability. The same for all of the list articles which aren't called list articles. My OP here was an an attempt to reduce that issue a tiny bit. Which includes dealing with the question....do or do we not want the types of articles described in my OP (not my quickly grabbed 6) to exist? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
"The latter" exists in two guidelines:
  • SPINOUT, which says you can create that article, and
  • WP:N itself, which says editorial judgment matters.
(The only person I see using the word violate in this discussion is you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm with you in spirit, but there's nothing in spinout which exempts it from the wp:notability test. (I wish that there was) I've seen highly enclyclopedic sub-articles deleted on that basis.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The ultimate "notability test" is whether editors agree to let you keep the article.
You might be interested in Blenheim Palace in film and media as an example. The history appears to be:
  • WP:SPLIT a bunch of ==In popular culture== out of the main article;
  • someone tries to PROD it, but it's reverted;
  • same someone tries to AFD it, but it's kept;
  • another editor blanks most of the content.
At no point do I see anything that suggests that anything after the split was done with the idea of making the article better. The goal appears to be either trying to get "unworthy" information out of Wikipedia entirely, or to make others go back to the starting point if they forget to say "Mother, May I?" before taking a step.
One of the disputes on the page is whether content like this:
List of books written by Alice Expert: ''[[The Sun is Really Big]].
would actually be improved by adding a ref to a primary source, like this:
List of books written by Alice Expert: ''[[The Sun is Really Big]]<ref>{{cite book|last=Expert|first=Alice |title=The Sun is Really Big}}</ref>
We do seem to have a few editors who believe this would be a significant improvement (though I think in this case, the hope is that editors will fail to restore any of the content because they've assumed that what's wanted is a gold-plated source with an enormous amount of detail, instead of one that's merely reliable—a guess that perhaps makes sense, since even cited information was blanked because the citations "merely" verified the contents of the list and didn't expand on why the facts were important). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Blenheim Palace in film and media might not be a good example. "In popular culture" sections are meant to follow WP:IPC and the RFC on the matter. Looking at the history the content shouldn't have been split but trimmed down in the main article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
They are meant to follow an essay and a nine-year-old RFC – one which says nothing about following the essay, and which was conducted a time when the community was struggling to tell the difference between an independent source and a secondary one – that says tertiary sources are better than secondary ones? I kind of doubt it, honestly. IPC content has to follow the rules put forward by our core content policies, just like everything else. Those rules don't prefer tertiary sources for basically anything.
Also, the summary (e.g., "should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance") indicates that they're looking at the question of what's DUE for the article rather than whether it's verifiable in a source identified within the article. The summary also glosses over some nuance in the responses. @Masem, for example, said "Reference required save for obvious cases where mentioned by name by the referencing work". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It's something that I've seen brought up a few times. No comment on the RFC as it's before my time. I'd agree that there are obscure essays and even guidelines that could do with discussions to see if they still represent community consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Essays aren't really meant to represent community consensus. Some of them definitely do; others definitely don't. Some of them are just explanations that someone stuck on a separate page instead of posting in a discussion (or, in my case, re-re-re-re-posting: Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, Wikipedia:Based upon, Wikipedia:Directly supports, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement and more are pages that I created as essays so I could stop re-typing the same answers).
Of course, people say all sorts of things, especially if they think it will help them 'win' a dispute. Today, we will cite WP:ABC because we believe that's best for the situation being discussed, and tomorrow we will pound on the table about how WP:NOTABC requires the opposite response because we believe that the opposite response is the best approach to that dispute, and two different sets of newbies will learn opposite rules (and, unfortunately, not learn that we need them to use their own judgement or what the underlying principles are). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Compilation of stats that are normally done by reliable sources, shuffled off a main prose page, would be reasonable. So for example, a team's season's overall stats, or a summary of the public polls in an election season, seem reasonable since you can find these types of stats in RSes. In this case, the transactions one would fail to likely meet this metric, since this is rarely compiled in RSes, even though each individual entry is sourced to an RS. Masem (t) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
A quick trip to the nearest web search engine indicates that NHL transactions are indeed compiled by sports news organizations (e.g., by CBS Sports and The Sports Network, not just a hobbyist's personal website or an ad-driven database). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Masem, I agree that true sub-articles of otherwise-oversized articles should get in even if not separately established as being wp:notable. I've seen highly enclyclopedic & informative ones deleted on that basis. There might be some question as to whether wp:not weighs in against stats-only articles even if not a clear violation. But they are sort of list articles, per my OP here. I think that the one criteria should be is that it's likely that a person might search by that grouping. (So no list of polls taken by firms that begin with the letter "a") I think that compiled by an RS might be a good metric for that. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Kent Hughes

Torrey C. Mitchell was represented by Kent Hughes for 11 years as a NHL player when he was a player agent. On Kent Hughes wikipedia site Torrey was omitted on the list of players Mr. Hughes represented .

In addition , on the University of Vermont Hockey alumni notables wikipedia site Torrey C. Mitchell was omitted as a Team Captain, Team Rookie of the year and MVP , Hall of Fame Inductee. Torrey definitely was a UVM Hockey Notable. He contributed over 100 points in slightly over 100 games. The Catamounts had three winning seasons with Torrey in the lineup. 174.94.83.103 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Puckpedia doesn't list an agent for Mitchell. Certainly he was a significant player for Vermont, and he had a long enough NHL career that he'd meet the customary standards for inclusion in such an alumni listing. Ravenswing 22:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting

Your article makes no statement on proposing deletion for a pageFourLights (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about schools

Hello. Was wondering what generally is considered sigcov / enough for notability when it comes to schools, in particular business colleges? I don't think I've ever written any articles about institutions or organizations before, but came across two pages that I pondered whether they deserve articles. The two schools in particular are the two entries at Template:Colleges and universities in Delaware missing articles: Hines Private Business College and Thompson's Business College (both former institutions from my home state). Thompson's has some coverage in the state papers, such as [4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], as well as many quick mentions; also has a page discussing it in the offline 1958 Delaware Blue Book (which I have). Hines has an article on it here as well as a number of brief mentions, including short pieces such as this on its baseball team. Do the notability folks think that either of these colleges are notable? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NSCHOOLS. Public schools need to meet the GNG, private ones, NCORP. — Masem (t) 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"Private" isn't quite a synonym for "for profit" althought the distinction is moot for this particular case. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Quite. Many schools (such as, I think, all of the Ivy League universities in the US) are private but non-profit. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of private colleges and universities are non-profit. That's why we don't even include "non-profit" in the infobox or lede sentence for those institutions - we only include "for-profit" for the handful of institutions that differ. ElKevbo (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Masem: Your thoughts on the mentioned two schools as to whether they meet the criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Neither school looks to have the GNG requirement of sources covering the schools in depth, the longest articles are only a few paragraphs long and seem to half cover the person that founded the school. Masem (t) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Masem: Located three other links for Thompson as you wrote your comment up (5-7); just to confirm, could you also take a quick look at those and see if you think it makes any difference? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't think any of them provide what we are looking for in terms of significant coverage. The articles only hit a few facts but do not really delve into the school outside of a bit of history (in the case of the last article). And best I can tell, the Thompson there is a non-notable figure for us, and so as a private school, also readily fails NCORP. — Masem (t) 00:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

While this has no place in any presumed binary flow chart, IMO in the fuzzy wp:notability system, if they have a significant NGeo type presence, that can weigh in a bit towards inclusion. But I think that my point is moot for the particular example at hand. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article. WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. Making a distinction between public and private institutions is therefore completely unnecessary. NCORP is merely meant to emphasise that sources for commercial organisations have to be looked at carefully due to advertising; it is not the deletionist's charter that some editors seem to think it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is an SNG and does not supersede GNG. An SNG can suggest a broadening of notability requirements but it cannot narrow them. That is not the consensus about what NCORP requires, and WP:ORGCRIT makes very clear that the reason NCORP creates a higher standard is because it's very easy to churnalism your way to "notability". voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that this may be moot for the specific one at hand, but there's pretty wide acceptance and practice that for businesses, the additional NCorp source type criteria is used when applying GNG. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Re: I should point out that anything that meets WP:GNG can have an article - I don't think this reflects overall community consensus. Many topics, such as living people, corporations, numbers, and unreleased films, are subject to WP:SNGs that are more restrictive than GNG, and arguments for retaining a separate article, based on a GNG pass that does not meet those more restrictive standards, are not generally accepted in those domains.
Also, although a number of editors seem confused on this point, GNG itself is like any SNG in that it offers at best a presumption that a topic could have an article - other considerations (including WP:NOT and WP:PAGEDECIDE) always apply. I'm not assuming that Necrothesp disagrees with this, but "can" seems more assertive than "could", and the presumption is always conditional. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviews posted on social media (e.g. YouTube) instead of traditional media

Why aren't they permitted under notability guidelines? I wanted to write an article about Garten of Banban, a video game series that has been discussed extensively on the Internet (often due to its dubious quality) but has not received coverage in major video game news publications. I understand the high requirements for source credibility in topics like science or politics. However, in the case of video games, I would argue that reviews published on YouTube by notable creators with a big outreach are enough evidence for notability. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this but I fail to see how a platform on which a review is published introduces a difference in credibility between what amounts to personal opinions of the reviewer. HallsInRealLife (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of a platform like YouTube, it's not the platform itself that makes a difference but the credibility of the source (the reviewer). If Roger Ebert had had a YouTube channel and reviewed a work there, that could have contributed to an assessment of its notability; if Joe Schmoe has a YouTube channel, not so much. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Ebert was a famous and respected critic, most people who are writers for video game websites are not. That's not to say that I don't think their reviews are credible, it's just that if you asked people in the community who Jarrett Green is, I doubt you'd find many people who know (Green is just a random example from the first IGN review I clicked on). Unlike in the case of film, I'd argue that in the case of video games there isn't really a major difference in the knowledge of the medium between a Joe Schmoe from YouTube and a Joe Schmoe from IGN or GameSpot and people from social media often have the benefit of greater recognition within the community. HallsInRealLife (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that what you're asking is what counts as reliable source for notability purposes. I think someone like dunkey, for example, would probably be considered a reliable source for video game purposes (although WP:VG is probably a better place to ask) because he's a subject matter expert who is recognized as reliable by secondary sources. In general, however, for a source to be reliable, there needs to be a reputation for fact-checking, and unless we know that Joe Schmoe hires an independent editor who fact checks his reviews, we can't use it for anything on Wikipedia. By contrast, IGN probably holds their video reviews to the same editorial standards as their written works, and so those would be considered reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I agree with you. I'll try to cite people who meet the secondary source criteria, if I don't find enough such sources, I'll just abandon the article idea. HallsInRealLife (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Cannot create new articles without having to use this

I would like to be able to make my own articles easily without having to edit another one. Plz fix this, wikipedia.org. 66.255.214.97 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You should be able to create drafts, and once created you should be able to nominate them for review as a potential new article. See Wikipedia:Drafts. However, new users are required to demonstrate some level of experience and competence before they are allowed to create articles directly. This is a deliberate decision to protect the encyclopedia from spam and low-quality content, not a problem in need of fixing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically meeting notability

Hi, 331dot, and thanks for helping at WP:Tea house. I wanted to explore a point in a Tea house response you made about Notability in this edit, where you said:

A person can technically meet the notability criteria and still not merit an article because the sources are not there.

In my understanding of Notability, that is a self-contradiction, or else I don't understand what you are saying. If someone meets notability criteria then it means the sources are there, full stop. No sources, no Notability. Afaik, the main reason not to merit an article if the N threshold passes is WP:NOPAGE, but that still requires sources. What am I missing here? Can you elaborate on your comment? (P.S. raising this here, and not at the Tea house in order not to confuse the questioner with technical discussions about fine points of policy.) Mathglot (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If a person clearly meets a SNG, but there are no sources to develop an article, then they aren't really eligible for a stand-alone page. We've really changed on this in the past few years to deprecate a lot of the SNGs especially in say sports so this is less relevant than it used to be. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; I get WP:NOPAGE (when something *does* have sources meeting N but still does not merit a page), that's not the problem. I'm disputing the highlighted text, not NOPAGE. They might meet a SNG but SIGCOV still applies, so N fails. Mathglot (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I never mentioned NOPAGE. I'm discussing a situation where the one single thing we know about a topic or person is that they pass a SNG, such as someone who participated in the Olympics and made a database of Olympians. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the quoted text, but there are certainly living people who meet WP:NPROF without sources that satisfy GNG or WP:NBASIC, and we often have articles about such people on enwiki.
So I guess the issue I have with the quoted text is the ambiguity of the phrase, the sources are not there. All articles must have a claim to significance that meets WP:V, at least, but any stronger statement than that really depends on which notability criterion is being invoked in a specific case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm hearing a case from more than one respondent that in some cases WP:SIGCOV does not apply. That is absolutely not my understanding. Otherwise the policy becomes pointless or greatly debilitated as editors argue why their article doesn't require any sources. Don't think we want to go there. Yes, always sources; no exceptions. Am I wrong about this? Please provide an example of a topic that rates an article that has no sources. My claim is, there is no such topic. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't hear anyone saying articles can exist without reliable sources - that certainly isn't my understanding. But many editors do in fact hold that verifiable, officially recognized populated places should receive a presumption of having an article whether or not a full paragraph has been written about that place in an independent, secondary source (the latter being some editor's idea of a threshold that should always apply to SIGCOV). They must verifiably meet the grounds for the presumption of notability, which requires RS verifiability, but above that threshold the existence or otherwise of a standalone article becomes a WP:PAGEDECIDE question.
Likewise, many, many articles on academics lack "SIGCOV" references - the biographical information in many of these articles comes from ABOUTSELF sources or non-independent sources (like their employers or scholarly bodies to which they belong), and while all existing articles should be verifiable, WP:SIGCOV is, well, a significantly higher standard (especially as interpreted by those editors who read SIGCOV as requiring at least three sources, all of which must meet all the SIGCOV elements including a depth requirement).
I understand that a number of editors believe that GNG applies to all articles, but that isn't the way WP:N has ever actually read, to my knowledge - it certainly isn't how it reads now. And while some SNGs are simply more restrictive than GNG, or are "predictive" of GNG, others demonstrably are not - PROF being only the best-known example of several.
Also, to Blueboar, not all SNGs are intended to predict GNG sourcing - again, see NPROF, but this also applies in certain other cases (viz. Nobel Prize winners in Economics, some of whom don't meet GNG/NBASIC). And GNG doesn't guarantee an article, either - it is also only a presumption, itself. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The SNGs outline situations where sources are extremely likely to exist… hence we “presume” notability. However, nothing is guaranteed… and on rare occasions, it turns out that the expected sources don’t exist after all. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So, what is "presumed" notability, other than: "I thought this was gonna be Notable per XYZ at this SNG, and so I started looking but turned out I was wrong. It is not notable after all." I.e., it's still, "no sources, no notability". SNG's are fine as a how-to for helping to evaluate whether it's worth the time to bother trying to look for sources about this ping-pong player, but in the end, who cares what mistaken presumptions or dead-ends editors went through trying to find sources that aren't there? Maybe all the SNG's should have a disclaimer at the end, "...but if that presumption turns out to be wrong and there are no or insufficient sources, then it is not notable." Prior to this, I would've thought that would be completely unnecessary, but now I'm not so sure. Mathglot (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumed just means we can assume they're notable unless and until we can demonstrate that they're not. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(ec)I think that you are trying to read too much into the quoted comment. I think that the general intent was an observation that "you can't make an article without sourcing" and you are analyzing it as if it is a structural statement of a guideline or policy. Not that there aren't ways to read it as a structural statement of wp:notability, but I don't see the usefulness of looking for that. For example, (here I go anyway :-) the top of the wp:notability page says that meeting an SNG is sufficient so satisfy the wp:notability requirement. But most SNG's are generally worded to say that they are mere predictors of the existence of suitable sourcing or GNG sourcing. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(post-ec from above) That may very well be true (reading too much into it). I agree about "mere predictors"; maybe that needs to be clearer. Also, the more I look at it, the more the use of presumed seems to be handled inconsistently. At WP:GNG it defines the word, and says that it "means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption..." (emphasis added) and the SNGs give a bunch of predictor-criteria like awards and book reviews and such leading to a presumption (without mention sources) and the two don't sync very well. I guess if there's no harm resulting from this disconnect then we can leave it alone, but I find statements like the Tea house response could be misleading to new users, and it would be better to tell them that
"an article that has no sources or insufficient sources (i.e., fails to meet WP:GNG) is not notable and may not have a standalone article".
They can learn the fine points about SNGs later. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
NO NO NO. It is false and incorrect and wrong that an article that fails to meet GNG is not notable. We have SNGs that are independent from GNG (WP:NSPECIES is another). An article may meet those SNGs without meeting GNG. An article may meet a SNG, not meet GNG, and still be fit for an article (because its sourcing is reliable for all claims, but without multiple sources that are in-depth and independent, criteria that are not the same as reliability). Such an article is notable. It meets a notability criterion, therefore by definition it is notable. An article may meet a SNG, not meet GNG, and be unfit for an article (because it fails V because inadequate reliable sourcing). Such an article is technically notable but we should not have it. That is the whole point of this passage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
One minor semantic quibble to insert here… we are not determining whether an article is notable… we are determining whether the subject/topic of the article is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Also true. But adding more language falsely equating GNG-notability with notability is not the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't really say anything other than what has been said here. North8000 sums up my thoughts on this. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Ultimately, what determines whether we keep or delete an article is that messy and inconsistent thing we call “consensus”. If there are no sources talking about a topic, BUT the consensus is that we should have an article about it, we will keep it. Likewise the reverse. The SNGs and GNG guide us in making the decision, but (rare) exceptions can be made. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    No sources, but keep the article anyway (even rarely) because of consensus? And how do you propose to achieve neutral point of view in light of no sources? Rather, with no sources at all to measure NPOV, it would or could devolve into a free-for-all, so the content would be based, I suppose, on a majority, vote-by-original-opinion kind of consensus of what the artjcle should say? I would say with no sources you can *never* develop an article, because WP:NPOV is policy and cannot be overruled by consensus, so any consensus you achieved in the absence of sources would be worthless. Ergo, no sources, no article. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't seen any suggestion in this discussion that a topic for which no RS exist can have an article; this would violate WP:V. I don't think the quoted text at the top of this section, the sources are not there, can be reasonably parsed as "no sources exist". I think a more plausible and relevant interpretation might be, "no sources exist that uncontroversially meet WP:SIGCOV" - but lots of policy-compliant articles do not meet the strictest reading of SIGCOV (probably including most biographies of academics, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    The comment just above mine @22:47, starting: "If there are no sources...". Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Well I can't speak to the intentions of any other editor, but I would parse "no sources talking about a topic" as "no sources are known to exist that uncontroversially meet SIGCOV". I suppose this reflects an inclination on my part to steelman what I read on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    That's generous, but if there are no sources known to exist that meet SIGCOV, what do you propose for the disposition of that topic? I think WP:NOPAGE would apply; at best, merge the content to an existing article. Do you see it differently? Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    The answer to your first question really depends on the topic, in my view. For some topics that relate to WP:GEOLAND, or WP:NPROF, or WP:SPECIES, articles are routinely retained for which no sources exist that are simultaneously independent, secondary and offering depth of coverage. It appears that the community does not agree that NOPAGE applies in these cases.
    To answer your second question: I believe NOPAGE does not apply in these cases, but my own view is that SIGCOV can be understood differently, in a way that makes sense of these outcomes. I take the specific language of SIGCOV seriously and see significance in terms of relevance to encyclopaedia writing rather than being a fixed depth requirement. This is my own view, and it "explains" the survival of articles that are in fact retained although they fail other interpretations of SIGCOV, but I do not pretend that there is consensus beind my view. I do believe, however, that there is clear consensus behind the retention of many articles that do not meet GNG or a "strict" reading of SIGCOV (as though it were parallel to WP:SIRS, for example, which it seems clear to me it is not). Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, dogmatist. But we have lots of content in article space that is not sourced, may never be sourced, and is totally non-problematic. All those surname pages that list people with a surname and a bluelinked article but don't go into any detail about the history and origins of the surname, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Not sourced (ie., no citations at present) is one thing, not sourceable (i.e., unverifiable) is another. All those surname pages that don't have citations are fine if no one challenges them, but as soon as they do, the requirement for a citation kicks in. And there is no exception for lists: see WP:LISTVERIFY. Likely if the surnames are blue-linked to an article which is sourced, no one will care; that appears to be the normal case for most lists with blue-linked list entries. But if they are unlinked and uncited then if the article or the item is tagged for sourcing, then citations are required. WP:V is absolutely clear about this, and there is no escape-clause for lists of surnames or lists of anything. Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think that some folks are trying to derive categorical statements from the fuzzy ecosystem of wp:notability where they do not exist and apply them to un-realisticly simple hypothetical cases which don't exist. Unless we overtake a complete rework of the wp:notability guidelines and ecosystem, nobody is going to find the categorical tidy-ness which seems to underlie many of the points made here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't disagree about the tidiness, and to an extent all the policies and guidelines are ideals to strive for, and not infrequently they are in conflict with each other when we move from an ideal world to the scruffy reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and there are some bright lines, such as unverifiable content may be removed, and if no sources about a topic can be found, then all of the content of the article can be removed (of course in that case, it never should've been created in the first place). Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Those are true but simpler tidier cases. And wp:notability overall is at the far messier end of the spectrum. Including the unacknowledged considerations that are taken into account. But for me, once you have an overview of that herd of cats there are far fewer dilemmas. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it unusual if another language's Wikipedia has a stricter notability criteria than the English Wikipedia?

I want to ask for editors' thought on this. Can a Wikipedia project in another language has a stricter notability criteria (particularly the additional criteria) than the English project? Does that mean there can exist articles that is eligible for notability (and inclusion) in the English Wikipedia but not in another language? If an article is deleted on the "local" Wikipedia for failing its stricter criteria, can that same article be retained in the English version since it meets the more laxed criteria here? Consultant Wiki (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The choice of notability criteria is different from project to project, and there is no logical requirement that these choices can be ordered linearly on a strictness scale. It would be entirely possible for two different Wikipedias to each have articles that are not notable by the other one's standards. English has no special place in this regard. I don't happen to know of a case where other Wikipedias would not consider an English-Wikipedia-notable topic to be locally notable, but I don't know any reason why it should be impossible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @David Eppstein, @Newimpartial and @Voorts for the clarifications. Much appreciated. On a related note, if a different-language Wikipedia set a stricter criteria (says, being members of the national legislature is no longer a valid criteria for that project's equivalent of WP:POLITICIAN), would this have any effects on the notability of the English Wikipedia article of a subject coming from that country/language (as long as EnWiki WP:POLITICIAN still considers member of national parliament to be notable)? Consultant Wiki (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No, it would not. As everyone has just said, every project has its own policies and guidelines, including guidelines for notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe that BLP notability is much tighter at some Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Each project has its own criteria. Also, notability is not some kind of measurable quantity, and many deletions on enwiki are motivated by WP:NOT rather than, say, the quantity of sources available. I imagine that deletion on some other language wikis may be based on similar criteria, and there is even less reason to expect those considerations to "line up" than there is reason why sourcing critera would produce a set of results than can be lined up from "stricter" to "more relaxed". I think it is best to think of each wiki applying its own, independent standards and considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with all above - in deletion discussions that the subject (usually a person) has an article on another language is only a weakly pursuasive argument, and for purists no argument at all. If they have articles in say 15 other languages, that is rather different. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I have seen editors occasionally claim in deletion discussions that the article at some other Wikipedia was recently deleted, so we "have to" delete this one here. I don't think I've seen any experienced editor agree with that, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias set their notability criteria, which is usually in the same ballpark as the English criteria, but might deviate somewhat on specific topics. Whether an article is deleted for notability reasons only in some other language wikipedia should have no bearing for us and vice versa. However if an a subject has an article in many foreign language wikipedias one might see that as weak argument for potential notability here. It might be worth to note that deletions of subjects throughout several wikipedias are usually (at least in my experience) not just triggered by a lack of notability but because they have sourcing and verification issues as well or are even straight out fakes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Notability of linked content

Within an article, if content references an existing WP article by wikilinking, does that linking confer notability onto the content containing the link? If so, is it improper for an editor to remove that content by claiming non-notability? WCCasey (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be connected to a content dispute at Encino, Los Angeles. Just because something has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean it's significant enough to mention in an unrelated article (in this case, "in popular culture" trivia). This should really be a discussion at Talk:Encino, Los Angeles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The other editor has started a discussion here Talk:Encino, Los Angeles#Trivial "In popular culture" listings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The content might be notable enough to have it's own article, but that has nothing to do with whether it should appear in another article. The popular culture section should really have secondary sourcing to show it's relevant, and to something better than someone's random tumblr page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get to a consensus on what the Notability guidelines are for this kind of situation. Rather than editors's own opinions, I'd like to see references to the actual guidelines we're supposed to follow.WCCasey (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Notability guideline tells us whether a topic should have a stand-alone article devoted to it. It does not discuss whether that topic should be mentioned in some other article.
To give an example, we have an article on Cosplay, because that is a notable enough phenomenon to deserve its own article … Yet we don’t mention cosplay in our article on Star Wars, despite the fact that dressing up as a Star Wars character is a popular form of cosplay. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@WCCasey, I think you are asking for the wrong thing. "Editors' own opinions" (we call it "community consensus") are the original and primary source of those "actual guidelines". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a better question is when does content rise above the level of trivia that should be removed? WCCasey (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

When the existence of an article is not in dispute, notability is not relevant. What you want is WP:DUE, part of our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@WCCasey, take a look at MOS:POPCULT. Schazjmd (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As others have noted, Wikipedia:Notability regards suitability to have a separate article, and is not relevant to content within the article. So your decision will need to be based on other factors.North8000 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT provides some useful guidance, and helps to show me that Notability is not the main issue either for inclusion or for removal of content. The "better question" I posed above connects to editor etiquette WP:EQ, which counsels that consensus should be pursued via a Talk page (separately for each item) prior to deletion of content. WCCasey (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything at WP:EQ that implies that an editor cannot remove content from an article without getting consensus first, could you quote the portion of WP:EQ that you consider states that? Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Editors do not need to seek approval before editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the WP:EQ "Principles of Wikipedia edit" would lead an editor to seek consensus before deleting content, but in particular: "When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary) and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question." Of course, an editor can also delete first and see if anyone asks questions (e.g. reverts) later - as happened here. WCCasey (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Removing content wouldn't immediately be a revert. If someone revert them then they should seek discussion, but the same is true of an editor adding content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Unicode codepoints

(...or whatever word it is legitimate to use to refer to any displayed mark with a Unicode value). I see many cases, in particular of redirects, where some Uchar (I'll call them) is added, and the justification is just that "Unicode is notable, therefore any reference to any fact involving any Uchar must be essential to the article." It seems to me this is obviously false: of course there will be cases where some particular Uchar deserves discussion, but just saying "Unicode therefore" should not be sufficient grounds for it. Should the guidelines discourage indiscriminate addition of such entries. ¶ Well, I see there are over 30,000 of these redirects; I picked a random one which turned out to be a vowel in Devanagari [sp?], which I suppose is fine. But I recall a silly argument over 💯, which redirects to the 100 disambiguation page. It does not appear on that page, so no disambiguation is achieved; the reader somehow puzzled by what it means can presumably see that it is the number 100 handwritten in red, but is none the wiser. The current example is of CJK compatibility Uchars, which are only present in Unicode for administrative reasons, to ensure that a document in an archaic encoding can be mapped to Unicode and back again without loss of information. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 10#㌽: the Uchar ㌽ is a typographical kludge to present the four-character word ポイント (Japanese: "point", probably referring to the typographical unit) in tiny print within a single square "character space". It is so obscure that a web search returns only hits in dictionaries and similar; i.e. no "use", only "mention". I cannot see any plausible scenario in which someone not already knowing what it is could possibly have it in their hand (so to speak) to paste into the search box. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's me saying the same somewhere else... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers/Archive 8#Another example: 100 Imaginatorium (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The OP may be right or wrong, but this is the wrong page on which to raise the issue. Notability is concerned about whether an article should exist or not, not about the contents of an article or about redirects. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Where would be the right place? I am suggesting that the notability guidelines (wherever they are exactly, and wherever they can be discussed) should suggest that the mere existence of information in the Unicode specification does not automatically confer notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It can be much easier to say that something is in the wrong place than to identify the right place! I would probably go to Talk:Unicode, but someone may come up with somewhere better. My point about this being the wrong place was made because redirects do not have to be notable to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the response anyway. Perhaps "notability" isn't exactly the right concept (I am proudly not a WP:LAWYER). Redirects as such are often merely pointless (we could end up with a redirect to Wiktionary for every foreign word) - it would just help if there was a neat WP:NEATRULE saying that the mere existence of something in the Unicode tables does not confer automatic right to be in WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium says: the reader somehow puzzled by what it means can presumably see that it is the number 100 handwritten in red, but is none the wiser
I conclude: This editor is not old enough to need reading glasses.
Every few weeks, I copy and paste some character to find out what it is. If you look at the pageviews for these redirects, I'm clearly not the only person doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, so in this particular case, you get redirected to 100. What do you learn from this that you did not know before? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I can usually see the red 100, so I don't need a link for that particular one. What I learn from others is what they mean. 🧎 is not legible to me. When I click the link, I can find out what that blur means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor phrasing in WP:NEXIST

@Joe Roe I’m struggling to see your opposition to: The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article … does not guarantee that a subject is not notable.? This is exactly aligned with the comment you made: Whether sources are cited and whether they exist are two independent questions; that's the whole point of this section. — HTGS (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well it's not just me, is it? David Eppstein reverted it first.
The current wording is The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article [...] does not indicate that a subject is not notable. As you said in your edit summary, changing indicate to guarantee implies that a lack of sourcing does indicate a lack of notability. This is not the case. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
So you have issue with my edit summary more than the edit itself? I think a lot of people would disagree, and say that a lack of sourcing does indicate (as in, imply or suggest) a lack of notability, but I would assume all would (should) agree that a lack of sourcing does not guarantee a lack of notability.
I fail to see the ‘guarantee’ phrasing as problematic or controversial, other than the feeling that it is a shift in meaning, because it is being compared to what is currently written.
I also understood David to object to the other part of a previous edit. But please correct me if I’m wrong. — HTGS (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The lack of sources in an article says nothing whatsoever about the potential for it to be sourced. It does say that the article is not currently sourced, but not why it is unsourced. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
No, it's the edit that is the problem. You just accurately described that problem in your edit summary. Are you trying to say that indicate and guarantee don't mean different things? In which case, why are we having this discussion? – Joe (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Secunding Jclemens' view. While sourcing is desirable, it can be absent for various reasons. The prasing "does not indicate" is neutral towards this problem, while "does not guruantee" is correct, but implies that there may be something wrong with notability. Which may or may not be the case in any individual case, and therefore should not be a phrasing in a general guideline. Daranios (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
In individual cases there may well be something “wrong” with sourcing in an article that has no sources. My only point was that between two articles, one sourced and one unsourced, the sourced article is more likely to be notable. In my reading, the distinction matters, but is very minor, and it’s unlikely either phrasing would make a difference to a single soul who reads it—exactly why I didn’t ask before changing it—so I won’t pursue it further. — HTGS (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The proposed edit was not an improvement, regardless of the edit summary. I have followed the recent discussions about sources and notability quite carefully, and see no appetite in the community for a shift in this direction. Newimpartial (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I think Joe's concern, which I share, is that changing "indicate" to "guarantee" weakens the point made by WP:NEXIST. "Does not guarantee" reads as "there is a very slim chance the subject may be notable". "Does not indicate" reads as "this has no correlation to the subject's notability whatsoever". The latter is more accurate, and seems to be closer to community consensus. Toadspike [Talk] 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess it’s just that the idea that sourcing “has no correlation to the subject's notability whatsoever” is surprising to me. But maybe my reading of the language is just more practical than legal. In practice, most pages without sources are not notable, and pages without sources tend to fail notability tests; as a rule, a lack of sources is not enough to say that the page is not notable. I’m just seeing correlation as distinct from equivalence. — HTGS (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, try thinking of it this way: Europe is a notable subject. Imagine that a vandal blanks all the sources from it. Does the absence of those citations affect the notability of the subject?
I think it's obvious that the answer is 'no, of course not'.
In practice, you can have a non-notable subject that has been well-cited. This is rare but possible. A simple example is to imagine an inappropriate split of a small but heavily cited section out of a well-written article.
You can also have a notable subject that is completely unsourced, or only weakly sourced. This happens more frequently. We have had literally hundreds of thousands of completely unsourced articles that we determined were notable. We have likely had millions of articles that started off poorly sourced. The subject is notable (or not) no matter what the article looks like at a given point in time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1) I find an example involving vandalism excessively contrived; and 2) yes, I still understand and agree with the point behind the policy. Nothing about the word ‘guarantee’ disconnected the sentence from the meaning in your last paragraph. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Honestly it’s no big deal, I read both versions as giving the same ultimate effect... I'm just surprised at the pushback. — HTGS (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability of the decendants of Prince Abdulrahman living in the USA

Princess Karen Chatman has had multiple sources attesting her notability as a writer of children's books the Adventures of the Lost Prince. She is a direct descendant of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahima Sori, Princessa Karen is A member of the Official Royal House of Sori, Founder of Think Pink for a Cure, Think Pink Qatar, and the President of the United Global Research Center. Is this enough for a Wikipedia page. Is this enough sourcing to meet the Wikipedia criteria? Royals601 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You write "is this enough sourcing", but you have supplied zero sourcing. The claim of being a descendant of Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori is not automatic notability. Founding a nonprofit is not automatic notability. Writing a children's book is not automatic notability. For any of those claims we would need multiple reliable publications with in-depth coverage of Chatman, by people independent of Chatman, and preferably not credulous churnalism that reprints her press releases while taking her claims of royalty as meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
And none of the sources should be on this list, either. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you your comments have been most welcomed and helpful Royals601 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The simplest method for establishing notability is through the General notability guideline. You can do so by showing that there are multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. If you follow the link in this reply it will give you some guidance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed Royals of America (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Not an active royal house so not a princess. We can cover her if there are enough sources, but ask yourself if honest coverage is actually what you want. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahima Ibn Sori was and is a significant part of American History. Many Kingdoms in Europe and in Africa no longer exist but the lineage and inherited titles do. Princess Karen Chatman title is both symbolic but also recognize by the United States as many of the Abdul Rahman's descendants are as well. Royals601 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori is notable, but notability is not inherited. So secondary independent sources are required to show notability of any of his descendants. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree 100%. However, what is a element of notability is the efforts in which the decendants of Prince Abdul Rahman have embarked on globally. Their journey to ensure the preservation of Abdul Rahman's legacy and to unite all of his decendants. An iniative in which Princess Karen has accomplished and is known for amongst many other contributions to society. Royals of America (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Only if wp:rs have noticed these efforts, otherwise it fails wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
A kingdom that no longer exist doesn't remove the title or the inheritance (source). Spain for example and Prince Juan and King Carlos . Royals of America (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
In this case, the kingdom never existed. Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori was one of multiple sons of a warlord whose death in 1791 led to a series of succession disputes, in which Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori was uninvolved, because by that time he had been captured, enslaved, and brought to the US. We have enough trouble on Wikipedia keeping out the fantasy-world Eastern European royal and noble titles that became defunct in the early to mid 20th century, and all their associated genealogy cruft. This one is even more tenuous. Juan Carlos of Spain, on the other hand, actually ruled the country, and Spain's current constitution still contains a ceremonial role for its royalty. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Please Sir don't be disrespectful as your comments are not factual and are of a personal opinion. Prince Abdul Rahman was very much in power prior to his enslavement. Royals of America (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your better option is to expand Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahima Ibn Sori with reliable sources addressing this lineage, than seeking to create articles that are likely not notable. Masem (t) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. Terry Alford's "Prince Among Slaves" portrays and cited several decendants from the Natchez MS. Regions and Liberia. Recently an acknowledgement came from the US State Department of several of Abdul Rahman's Decendants. Royals of America (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Does that "acknowledgement" say "We recognize you as hereditary, life-long heads of state", or does it say something like "You appear to be descendants of this enslaved man"? A family descended from a head of state, but without a role as the head of any state, is not actually a royal family, in the dictionary-definition sense of that term. Most American families who can trace any (one) ancestor back to the early years of the US are descended from a European king; see Royal descent#United States. But that doesn't mean that most Americans are royal princes and princesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Since it is not I that is a decendant I can only go by the historical records that have been published and those unearthed in archives. Since Prince Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Ibn Sori is a notable figure as was acknowledged as a Head of State by the Kingdom of Timbo, Timbuktu, and the the United States President John Quincy Adams in 1828, both he and his heirs would be notable . It is not just European Kingdoms that held such nobility . This is a misconception among most. Royals of America (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
A head of state is notable. Heirs who never actually succeed to being heads of state are not. Ravenswing 12:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Also to claim to be a recognized head of state requires sourcing. I can find no evidence he was ever recognized as a head of state. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Princess Beatrice has never been head of State. Royals of America (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Again lacks facts or source . Royals of America (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Royals601, Princess Beatrice has had hundreds of books and newspaper articles written about her, of which 91 are presently cited in the article. She does not qualify for an article because of who her grandmother was; she qualifies for an article because newspapers and magazines write about her. She is 'notable' for exactly the same reasons as those celebrities who are 'famous for being famous': because they get attention from the press.
We use the word notable very strangely at the English Wikipedia, and I think that might be the source of the confusion here. What we're talking about is the minimum qualifications for a separate, stand-alone article. Having a great-great-great grandfather who was royalty is not one of the qualifications. Having many books and news articles written by other people and about the subject personally is one of the qualifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for providing your opinions. I appreciate it and will submit the article using sources. Royals of America (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Are laws/acts of Parliament presumed notable?

Per title, is there any subject specific guidelines for laws? Are national laws presumed notable or do they need to have notability demonstrated somehow? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. I have found that even for many acts that do pass GNG and have articles, they would more sensibly be covered by articles with a broader scope anyway (often in a form like: [X topic] in [country] law). — HTGS (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumed Notability is not the same as actual Notability. While there is an extremely high likelihood that any specific law will have sources covering it (enough to establish notability), we still need to cite those sources and establish that notability to have a viable article.
Also remember that notability should not be challenged just because sources are not (yet) cited. We need to do our due diligence and follow WP:BEFORE. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Technically all correct above but a point on terminology - notability is always considered presumed and can be sent to AFD with a proper BEFORE (the rebuttable presumption), the goal is to show enough sourcing as evidence that the presumption is considered valid. That's the purpose of the GNG and SNGs.
What we don't have, relevant to this question, is automatic presumption of notability for a type of topic. With extremely limited exemptions, an article still must show the presumption of notability via sources that meet the GNG or an appropriate SNG. For government laws, we don't have any SNG that applies so the GNG is left, meaning a handful of secondary sources with in depth coverage should be shown to avoid deletion. Masem (t) 12:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
>With extremely limited exemptions, an article still must show the presumption of notability via sources that meet the GNG or an appropriate SNG
I thought this was the case but I've seen many AfDs go against this. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
People just make up SNGs at AfD. Sometimes closers will accept those rationales (why that's the case is beyond me); other times they will close as no consensus, especially when there are vigorous delete !votes. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Notability is presumed for topics with significant coverage in reliable sources. We don't assume that a topic has notability at the outset. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
So SNG guidelines do not apply/cover a topic without any known sigcov? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
SNGs take a variety of different approaches. Some require SIGCOV, many provide markers that they believe correlated with SIGCOV, and a few do not require SIGCOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, nobody agrees on what constitutes SIGCOV (Is it Wikipedia:One hundred words? Enough information that you could write something longer than a doomed WP:PERMASTUB? Do you count all the content, or only the parts that are realistically usable in an encyclopedia article?), so even if you knew that SIGCOV was required, the dispute would merely shift grounds to whether that coverage is True™ SIGCOV or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen disagreement over SIGCOV before but I'm sure one word mentions that carry no information aren't considered SIGCOV by the majority of the community. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I find both Blueboar’s and Masem’s comments a little confusing. As I understand it, notability is presumed if GNG or an SNG are met. Actual Notability may be absent (subtracted) when or if... the community finds consensus not to include a topic for other reasons. (Right?)
So I read the original question as asking whether an SNG exists—or should exist—which automatically presumes (adds) notability for all statutory laws, even without any evidence of SIGCOV. — HTGS (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
You're not the only one. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
To which end, there is no SNG that covers laws or bills or other similar government constructs. They have to meet the GNG. --Masem (t) 11:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Now you've got the customary WT:N welcome and introduction to arcane terminology, to answer your question: there's no SNG covering laws and nothing about in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. The relevant guideline therefore falls back to WP:GNG. Anecdotally, I don't think articles like this are very common and therefore there has not been much need to develop a consensus about them at AfD. – Joe (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
In recent discussions I've seen, they've largely been kept or merged (sometimes I think incorrectly). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe that any law can exist (at least in democracies with some amount of freedom of speech) without being published and without there being comment on it, at least in law books. With the parenthetical proviso above any law will pass the general notability guideline, so factors other than notability need to be used to decide whether to have a separate article or a larger merged article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There are plenty of laws that receive little commentary in law reviews, and might only get passing mention in a newspaper. Not every law is a major event. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Especially for private bills or technical bills. It's true that the US Congress passed only 27 'proper' bills in 2023, but that's far from usual, and even that famously unproductive group passed hundreds of resolutions and thousands of other things. Look at the numbers in https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics and ask yourself how plausible it is that there would be 200 to 250 newly notable bills each year from the US alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that law texts are going to add commentary on every single statute that's passed. I'd be inclined to interpret SIGCOV pretty liberally for laws, but I think there are often cases where they might be better upmerged (e.g., a series of acts relating to the terms of incorporation of some government body might be collectively covered in a section of that body's article). Choess (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Some examples:
  • Congress passed and the president signed a law to rename a Post Office. There is no coverage of the law, let alone significant coverage.
  • The Duck Stamp Modernization Act of 2023 appears to have received some coverage, but it would make more sense to cover that law at Federal Duck Stamp rather than forking that information into a new article this is a relatively simple update to the duck stamp program.
voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking at List of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1720–1724. These lists are a nice setup (and they summarize each act with the "long title", so you don't have to worry about synchronizing summary style between list and standalone article), but of the acts that have links, almost all are redirects to articles of greater scope. That arrangement seems satisfactory. Choess (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_80&oldid=1241166741"