Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

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. GMG^talk 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)
  • Like Daily Dozen Doughnut Company? This is a typical example of link-harvesting to make it look notable. A notable author of reviews? According to the original poster that makes a restaurant notable despite WP:NOTINHERITED. But if you do critical about that, editors start ganging up to protect it. It does not matter much what you think about the present rules and regulations, there must be a clear line in enforcing them. The Banner talk 18:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
    • No, that doughnut place is still in business after 45 years. That's about 10 times the median lifespan of a restaurant in that region ([3]) and so it's doing exceptionally well. And it's still attracting coverage – another source was published just yesterday. One reason for its success is that it has a good location. I live about five thousand miles away but have visited Pike Place Market myself and it was quite memorable – I still treasure a leather flying helmet that I bought there. I didn't get a doughnut as they are not to my taste but de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
      • We have about two dozen articles on restaurants in Pike Place Market. These could all be merged into a List of restaurants in Pike Place Market without losing any information. BD2412 T 20:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

        Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

        • Creating such a compendious listicle would be contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, would make the content harder to load and read and would tend to generate unnecessary arguments about classification. For example, Pike Place does not classify the doughnut store as a restaurant. They currently have 23 restaurants but they are grander places while the doughnut place is either an "eatery" and/or "speciality food". To avoid completism and classification issues, it's best to focus on the individual businesses, case by case. That's easier to scale and maintain over time. See WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 6 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 _words^deeds 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:

• 1992_NSL_Cup_final
• Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election
• Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election
• 1996–97 NHL transactions
• 2023 Liga 3 West Java Series 1

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)