Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Does AUD over-reach?

Does WP:AUD over-reach. On examining Wikipedia:Deletion review#William Street Bird, I think it’s third sentence does over-reach and requires softening or removal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I very much disagree. Our requirement of more than just local coverage is important. That said, I could see more clarification on what we mean by “local”. We really were thinking of small town papers when we first crafted AUD. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, let “local” be the crux. Was it intended to include Perth, capital city of Western Australia? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why not? What makes a deli in a large city automatically more notable than one in a small town if the only people writing about it are employed to write reviews of their local restaurants? We already exclude all coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies regarding a business, so why would a piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune announcing the closure of a local restaurant be excluded as a "purely local event", but a review of that restaurant is totally not local because the paper also covers Duluth news? JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Because common sense. One is merely a mention announcing the closure, while the other is a written review for that region or outside visitors. Huggums537 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Who said the first is "merely a mention"? Plenty of "local events, incidents, controversies" get extensive local writeups. And what makes something "written for the region or outside visitors"; if it's merely "being published in a paper that covers any cities beyond its own" then I guess local snow day closures are also written for those outsiders too? How does a paper with a larger circulation make a review of a local establishment any less intertwined with local business promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perth, Western Australia, is possibly the most extreme case of a large isolated city. Over 2 million people, in a massive land area of only 2.6 million.

  My question is not about a deli, but whether newspapers from a capital city are to be automatically excluded per AUD.

  Reading again, the post semicolon clause of that third sentence, it implies that a statewide newspaper is not a local newspaper. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Statewide source" could also mean a source in the same state but a different city from the business. One of the intents of NCORP is to reduce the potential for coverage from people with a vested interest in the topic, which explicitly includes its customers, so requiring coverage from outside the area where its regular customers live makes a lot of sense. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IIS says "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic" and, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." This means that customers have nothing to do with a vested interest since a vested interest is a relationship between the topic itself and the publisher. If we are going to say we can't use news sources that are benefiting from customers, then we might as well shut it all down now. Huggums537 (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't be deliberately obtuse. IIS is an essay on independence for general subjects, that's irrelevant to the specific guidelines on source independence for organizations. If the author of an article is a regular customer of the place they are reviewing, NCORP says they are not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, changing your argument isn't helping things either. You've gone from talking about the coverage area where customers live to talking about an author not being able to eat at the place they have reviewed without it being considered [labeled] [non]-independent, which is really weird [since I'd imagine authors need to be customers in order to decide what to put in the reviews about if they like it or not]. Talk about being deliberately obtuse... Huggums537 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Essentially, you are saying if an author reviews a place, and likes it, they can never become a regular customer of that place, and have their articles used here because JJ said we don't go for that shit around here at NCORP. I would say that if your interpretation of NCORP is correct, then NCORP is the one being "deliberately obtuse". What's next? If an author benefits/profits from having certain kinds of "customers" purchase their books, then books are suddenly not allowed? When does the madness end, or start to reverse? When would NOW be a good time? Huggums537 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, getting back to subject, I think AUD does need to change for these reasons. Huggums537 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  About 'people with a vested interest in the topic, which explicitly includes its customers'... Yes, but it doesn't include other business's customers, even if they happen to overlap with your own customers. Consider:

  • Jon Journalist works for Smallville News and reviews David's Diner.
  • Chris Customer subscribes to the newspaper
  • Chris Customer regularly eats at the restaurant.
  • David of David's Diner is also a subscriber.
  • David's Diner runs an ad in the newspaper.

  Does the newspaper have a "vested interest" in David's Diner? No. Does the newspaper have a vested interest in the customers of David's Diner? No. In fact, if the diner closed down, the newspaper subscriber would have more disposable income that could be spent on newspaper subscriptions.

  Independence works exactly the same way for businesses and the media as it does for politicians and the media. Imagine how editors would laugh at them if someone tried to say:

  • Jon Journalist works for CNN and reports on the White House.
  • The President of the US watches CNN.
  • Therefore, CNN is not independent of the president, because the president is one of their customers!

  It's obviously wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: was that really the intent? Requiring coverage from outside the area where its regular customers live doesn't seem logical... That would for instance require coverage of Apple Inc. and Microsoft from Mars as their regular customers live in every region of the globe and include the vast majority of writers and journalists, so either Apple and Microsoft fail NCORP or you're selling us one pound of potatoes in a twelve pound sack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apple and Microsoft get coverage outside of Cupertino and Redmond. Valereee (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I thought what mattered was where the journalist lived and whether or not they bought the company's products, not where their corporate headquarters are... If thats the argument does NYT coverage of a strike at a gold mine in Zambia owned by a NYC based firm count as local coverage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Confused. Valereee (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, Apple etc. are commercial organizations, which fall under the alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and therefore can meet the alternate criteria instead of the primary criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying that Apple and Microsoft would in fact fail fail the primary criteria? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back, I'm responsible for some of the original efforts that turned into AUD (e.g., this 2008 edit, after this discussion), and, yes, my (and our) intent was to require coverage outside immediate area, whenever the coverage from within the immediate area was likely to be indiscriminate and not evidence of attention from the world at large. It was not meant to require coverage outside the immediate area when the coverage from within the immediate area was unlikely to have that problem. A review series in the newspaper that will cover 100% of restaurants in town is not useful to us. A review series in the newspaper that will cover just a tiny fraction of the restaurants in town is useful to us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain what "immediate area" means to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I will give you a specific example, because I think that might be more useful to you than a description:

  The Mulberry Advance is the local newspaper (number of readers: ~100) for the town of Mulberry (population: 400) in the county of Crawford County, Kansas (population: 39,000).

  If a business is located in/near Mulberry and described in its newspaper, then to be considered notable under AUD, it might be possible to argue that the minimum standard is an article in The Morning Sun of Pittsburg (a daily paper with ~9,000 readers, 15 miles away in the same county), but the standard I'd recommend is an article in The Joplin Globe (a daily with ~20,000 readers, 35 miles/50 km away, and, in practice, in a different media market). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  For me the crucial issues is a different media market. Valereee (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Statewide source" could also mean a source in the same state but a different city from the business. – Not exactly. A statewide source is a source whose realistic market is an entire state. A source from the same state but a different city is not necessarily a statewide source. In the US, statewide sources include (but, mostly depending on the population of the state, are not always limited to) the biggest daily newspaper for the state's biggest city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• It depends on how you interpret it... For a few years now there have been two dueling interpretations: the first that local, regional, etc refers to the geographic proximity of a source and the subject (therefore an article in the Anytown, USA paper about a restaurant in New York City would count but an article about the Anytown diner wouldn't, conversely an article in the New York Times about the Anytown diner would count but an article about the same restaurant in New York would not count). The second is that local, regional, etc refers to the caliber of the source (therefore an article in the Anytown, USA paper doesn't count for either the Anytown diner or the restaurant in NYC and the New York Times counts for both). These interpretations are diametrically opposed, at some point we will have to work out which of these is right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that WP:AUD has been stretched far beyond its original intent. As Blueboar notes, it was intended to limit exclusive reliance on a small town newspaper. In recent AfD discussions, we have people actually arguing that The New York Times should be disregarded as a "local" source when it publishes in-depth coverage of a New York business. Cbl62 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not disregarded so much as not considered non-local, meaning that coverage from somewhere else is still needed to show notability. Restaurant reviews in the NYT of a Manhattan restaurant should be considered local coverage. If a restaurant (or any business) is notable, wouldn't someone somewhere else surely be covering it? Valereee (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  This interpretation is not consistent with the original discussions about this. We were really concerned about tiny newspapers, not with the biggest and most selective newspapers in the US choosing to cover something in their backyard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't that a bit like saying "If this niche philosophy concept is notable wouldn't someone other than philosophy professors be covering it?" Isn't it just being covered by the most appropriate source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I think that academic concepts, like academic bios, is actually an unusual category. Can you come up with something more similar restaurants? Valereee (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sure... "If this play is notable wouldn't someone other than the theater critics and theater beat journalists be covering it?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yeah. If the play is notable, someone besides the paper local to the theater that put on its first production is going to cover it. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  In the English language an S at the end of a word generally denotes a plural. Something covered by a single article in a paper is never notable, no matter how august the paper... You're presenting a strawman. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can put an S on it. Valereee (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with @Horse Eye's Back here because I've grown weary of these same old tired arguments I always hear other editors use about notability where they usually start out with these awful if/then statements like; "If something were truly notable, then [insert hyperbole here]", but the hyperbole is almost always something a little bit unreasonable like; "..., then we would have made first contact by now because it would have been noticed by an alien civilization from across the universe who would have got some attention from it and attempted to contact us about it if it was "really" that important". Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're saying "if something is notable, someone somewhere else will be discussing it" is a hyperbolic, unreasonable and awful statement akin to expecting aliens in UFOs to have shown up to investigate, rather than simply someone a couple hours away? Valereee (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is a big (albeit a subtle) difference between saying, "if something is notable, someone somewhere else will be discussing it", and the source being a couple hours or a couple galaxies away for that matter. That is why I use such an extreme example to make my point, because there is a difference, and at some point it doesn't really matter if you are talking about a couple hours, couple states, couple countries, it might as well be a couple galaxies. So, yes it sort of is akin to that if aliens and UFOs were a provable thing anyways... lol. Just call it using hperbole to prove hyperbole if you like... Huggums537 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're arguing that a couple of hours is the same as a couple of galaxies when it comes to recommending visiting a restaurant? Valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that most "if something were truly notable" statements actually amount to "if something were truly notable, then someone would have produced evidence that convinces me, personally, that it is notable" which is essentially a tautology.

  This is why my own view has tended towards promoting overt discussions about what constitutes a "credible claim to significance" in terms of encyclopaedic merit, rather than editors sublimating their personal preferences about what an encyclopaedia should contain into (often tortured) interpretations of Notability guidelines combined with (often self-contradictory) assessments of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that if something is notable, someone outside its local area would have noticed it is pretty straightforward. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that a national or statewide newspaper isn't a local one is also pretty straightforward, and yet we see editors struggling with that.

  I think that Newimpartial is correct about the "convince me personally" problem, and also that our commitment to following the rules makes us be ...perhaps we will say "creative" with the way we interpret them. We see editors claiming that breaking news about their subject is obviously a secondary source, and we see the same editors claiming that the long analysis about your subject is clearly primary, or that since the statement comparing the earnings of these two rival companies relied on the financial reports by the companies (instead of hacking into their computer systems, maybe?), it's non-independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This sums up what I was saying in a more concise, and realistic manner. In my mind all these creative interpretations of what is supposed to be straightforward guidance might as well be aliens and UFOs because they make an equal amount of sense. Huggums537 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that a national or statewide newspaper isn't a local one is also pretty straightforward, and yet we see editors struggling with that.

  I agree, in the AfD at DRV that brought this to attention, editors were arguing that a statewide newspaper is a local newspaper. I think this means that the text at AUD is easily misread, and a copy edit, preserving the intended meaning, is needed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, I think you're right. We have the usual three options that apply to all confusing guidelines:

  1. Expand (or at least change) the text.
  2. Add footnotes.
  3. Link to an explanatory essay.

  For example, for the first, we could add something like this:

  N The subject does not meet the audience criterion if the only sources that write about this organization, business, or product are:

  • a small-town newspaper where the subject is located (does not apply to subjects that are not located in small towns or similar rural areas),
  • media of limited interest (e.g., a niche source about exclusively blue-green widgets only for CEOs in the widget industry. Note that a reputable trade magazine that addresses widgets and the widget industry more generally – not just a particular model of widget, and not just a particular role in the industry – is not an example of "limited interest"), and/or
  • media of limited circulation (e.g., a subscription-only periodical with very few subscribers; a periodical whose realistic target audience is very small).

  The purpose of the restriction on small-town newspapers is to exclude sources that may be indiscriminate, such as a local newspaper that reports on nearly every business in town, simply because there are so few businesses that it is feasible for the newspaper to report on all of them. The purpose of the restriction on media of limited interest and limited circulation is to meet the ultimate purpose of notability, which is to include subjects that have received attention from the world at large. No matter how useful it might be in writing an article, a newsletter sent to a very small number of people does not represent "attention from the world at large".

  Y If there is any one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source, or any one source with a general-interest or scholarly audience, then the audience criterion is automatically fulfilled. (Other criteria still apply.) Acceptable sources for this purpose always include, but are not limited to:

  • the biggest newspaper by circulation in any country (no matter how small the country or the newspaper is),
  • the biggest newspaper by circulation in any US state, Canadian province or territory, Australian state or territory, Indian state or union territory, or the equivalent subdivisions of any other country;
  • every newspaper that has a national market (e.g., The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post),
  • every newspaper that has a regional market (e.g., The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Star Tribune, The Boston Globe),
  • every newspaper that has an international market (e.g., International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, Financial Times, The Economist),
  • all reputable academic journals (including journals with a narrow subject matter; e.g., California Management Review, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Air Transport Management), and
  • all regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international magazines and other periodicals (e.g., Sports Illustrated, Good Housekeeping, Bloomberg Businessweek, Editor & Publisher, Aviation Week & Space Technology; however, exclude periodicals with limited interest or limited circulation).

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1. Change the text, yes, but it has to stay concise or it won’t be read at all. Concise writing is easier if there is an explanatory footnote t save you from the temptation to write more.
  2. 2. Footnotes are excellent for when someone wants to drill down into something, but the average reader is fine with a simple reading of the short version.
  3. 3. Reserve the explanatory essay for when there is any disagreement about the length or content of the footnote.

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Concision, as you well know, is not my forte. But the above verbose explanation could be shoved into a footnote, or split to an explanatory essay. Do you have a preference between those two?

  In terms of concision, the shortest I can come up with right now is this:

  • Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

  It could be followed by a statement like "See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement for more information." WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, sorry to dredge this up, but given the contention in this thread, I wasn't comfortable making this change myself. It seems the word "audience" was dropped by accident from before the first parenthetical, or perhaps some other minor error was made. —siroχo 01:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Now the sentence is grammatically correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I object to anything that is going to de facto make notable businesses it covers in the city in which the newspaper is published unless that newspaper is covering businesses outside that city as routinely as those within that city. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would hold that the perspective that "local is a category" is correct (although even the NYT does publish truly local news segments on recent weddings, etc. that are not significant coverage). But even then, not all coverage in the local category is created equal. Even in the same paper, you can often find both articles that do serious journalistic reporting and articles that are useless vanity pieces that do little more than state that a company exists and is excited to see your business. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It would be better to distinguish sources between “journalistic reporting” and “vanity pieces”, even if the second does correlate with WP:AUD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  For some subjects, the difference between "unpaid journalistic reporting that happens to be positive" and "unpaid puffery" is in the eye of the beholder. We should not encourage editors to guess at the independence of sources based on whether the source says positive things, because that will inevitably devolve to editors saying that "ILIKEIT, so it's independent" or "IDONTLIKEIT, so it must be secretly paid". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that, if anything, AUD should be strengthened. The rise of online news sources with multiple local affiliates under one domain makes the idea of "circulation" irrelevant; a newspaper can be "regional" simply by employing journalists from neighboring cities to report on those cities' local news. It's also MUCH easier for an online paper to be indiscriminate in the businesses it profiles, not to mention the fact that these papers get much of their revenue from being a marketing platform and thus are incentivized to push out as much content as possible. A much better distinction would be the target audience for particular stories: anything that is clearly intended to be for locals or of interest only to locals should be considered "local". That would mean yes, a NYT piece reviewing a neighborhood bar in a section dedicated to New York restaurants would be local. The prestige of the publication shouldn't matter if the subject pool is restricted to one place; if a business is actually noteworthy it will have received attention from publications outside the area where it derives its income. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Two words: tourist income. It's probably equal to local income, and thus why major national and worldwide recognized locations would want coverage for local attractions. We shouldn't care what incentives or motives news providers have for providing coverage as long as they do it reliably because all news providers are motivated to profit from providing coverage in some way or another. It isn't our job to speculate on those motives. Huggums537 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, if something is published in a nationally distributed paper, then the intended target audience obviously isn't local. Huggums537 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that Joelle's point is that a few nationally distributed papers also have a section that is only distributed locally. She would treat a review that appears only in the local section as insufficient for (single-handedly) demonstrating notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying that some national papers will distribute news sections strictly to their local community that doesn't get distributed to their national audience at all? I totally didn't know that, but if this is true, then maybe I could be on board with that, but if what is being said is that what is being distributed to everyone nationwide is "local" simply because it just also happens to be that whatever got covered was in this geographic area instead of that one is absurd and very unreasonable. It's like saying NY must go to LA to cover dining before LA dining can be notable, and LA must go to NY before NY before NY dining can be notable, and it is a totally unreasonable expectation. Huggums537 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will reiterate that catchment area is meaningless when content is available online to everyone. It's rarely clear which content available online even makes it into the print edition since often the "e-news" subscriptions that are supposed to be "digital replicas" of the print still contain extra material that generally isn't marked. But even if it is in the print edition, coverage of local rehab centers or local weather phenomena or (in America, where it is routine) local shooting incidents or local events or other items of local interest is not suddenly more noteworthy and deserving of encyclopedic treatment just because it is bundled into a regional or national newspaper. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get this argument, does this extend to all sources or just to newspapers? For example if a history journal based in New York publishes a paper on the history of Chinese Americans in New York would that paper not count towards the notability of a page about Chinese Americans in New York? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that local interest material in news media is routine under NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE regardless of how wide its circulation is. Academic journals and other media do not publish content that is considered routine by NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS does not make a distinction between the news media and other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue about the JJ argument either, and it actually seems to contradict itself. I will reiterate that catchment area is meaningless when content is available online to everyone. To me this means that if the information is available to anyone online, then making distinctions between local or worldwide "catchments" is meaningless, but JJ seems to be interpreting it otherwise. Huggums537 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Locality of distribution is distinct from locality of interest. That someone in another state has the ability to look at a city's newspaper online does not make a routine restaurant opening announcement something of "national interest" or otherwise exempt it from NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

How are editors supposed to determine what's of purely local interest?

That Chicago Trib article on rituals after losing limbs was interesting to me, and I'm in California, which is not "local" to Chicago.

The article about flooding will be interesting to people in the region (e.g., construction workers from outlying areas, who might decide that now's a good time to check out Chicago's higher pay scale), to anyone who is interested in extreme weather or the effects of climate change, and to some people outside the local area (e.g., in neighboring states) that were also affected by the same storm system, not to mention the NASCAR fans who might be interested in learning more about why the race was delayed.

Any drive-by shooting could be interesting to people studying gun violence in the US, but that particular article is breaking news, so WP:PRIMARYNEWS and automatically ineligible for notability considerations. The holiday article also looks like a primary source to me; it's just a bunch of Vox populi quotations strung together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

When something doesn't get significant coverage outside of the surrounding area, that is a good indication it is of local interest. Other indicators: inclusion of local street addresses/phone numbers.

"Use as a data point", like for gun statistics or climate change, is also obviously not secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

SIGCOV is a characteristic of the source, and not how I use it. I can (and regularly do) cite in-depth secondary sources for a single data point. That doesn't make the source stop having significant coverage of a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the guidance is exactly why it needs to be changed as Smokey Joe has suggested. Huggums537 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This misunderstanding or misrepresentation ...coming from an editor who argued CORPDEPTH doesn't expand on the depth requirements for a single source to pass the "SIGCOV" part of "SIRS" since it is a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance from SIRS... JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, not all of the arguments can be winners. Everybody has got to be allowed a certain amount of small percentage quota of flops... ;) Huggums537 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"if a business is actually noteworthy it will have received attention from publications outside the area where it derives its income." thats a no true scotsman fallacy. I'd also note that its logically absurd as coverage of multinational businesses with a global focus (for example Apple, Coca-Cola, or Toyota) would be excluded entirely rendering the world's most notable companies technically non-notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We already have alternate guidance on commercial organizations, so none of those companies would be affected. AUD is also clearly intended for news media coverage; a book or journal review article wouldn't be part of that.

I don't understand the resistance to ensuring article subjects are of interest to more than just the people in the same city or ensuring coverage is independent of the local economy. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

AUD is part of the alternate guidance on commercial organizations, better known as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Commercial organizations fall under the alternate criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The linked section is for listed companies, not commercial organizations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I linked to that subsection of commercial orgs because it fit your examples. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You said "We already have alternate guidance on commercial organizations" which is untrue and then linked to alternate guidance on public companies. IMO thats misleading. Also note that you appear to misunderstand how the alternate guidance works in this context, its to be used alongside the primary one, they do not replace it or trump it "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We do have alternate guidance for commercial organizations. It falls under the "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" section. The "public traded corporations" section is a subsection of the "Commercial organizations" subsection within "Alternate criteria". How is that misleading?? I didn't link straight to "Commercial organizations" because until just now it didn't have a shortcut, but I made one just for you: WP:COMMERCIAL. JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The general alternative guidance for commercial organizations is "Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING." which doesn't appear to cover what you said it covers at all. How does this address the concerns raised? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The general alternative guidance says such organizations can meet:

1. these alternate criteria,
2. the primary criteria for organizations, or
3. the general notability guideline

. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

All organizations fall under the primary criteria, and in practice, AUD is enforced at by voters at AFD for just about everything.

(I'm sorry that the GNG is named as an option at all. If it were actually true, then this guideline could be deleted, as GNG is rather weaker, and nobody would bother arguing that an article met the stricter criteria, because it'd just be too much work. But in practice, orgs are required to meet either the primary or alternate criteria here, which means that mentioning the GNG is just misleading to would-be article creators.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

All organizations fall under the primary criteria, and in practice, AUD is enforced at by voters at AFD for just about everything.

But in practice, orgs are required to meet either the primary or alternate criteria here

Which one is it? NCORP's section for alternative guidance provides alternative criteria for certain orgs to meet instead of the primary criteria, presumably to address the issue that global corporations don't have a local audience. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Smokey Joe is absolutely right. The third sentence is FUBAR'd. It is a contradiction in and of itself. In one hand it tells you that just one statewide source is needed, but in the other hand it tells you that attention solely from limited circulation is not an indication of notability. Huggums537 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Huggums537, why is this a contradiction? Is it unclear that the approved types of sources ("regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source") do not fall into the disapproved types of sources ("local media, or media of limited interest and circulation")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, the contradiction arises out of the fact that the guidance is worded in such an extreme way that two polar opposite views can both claim the exact same guidance to support their own opposite side of the debate. For example, one person might argue that per AUD it specifically says only one statewide source is all that is needed, while another person might argue that per AUD it specifically says that the limited circulation of solely one statewide source isn't enough of an indicator for notability. It is a glaring contradiction written directly into guidance, and it is so common in the Wikipedia landscape. Huggums537 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Limited circulation" is wording that should be completely eliminated. Every publication has "limited circulation". Has anyone ever heard of any publication with "unlimited" circulation? Huggums537 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, of course we've heard of publications with unlimited circulation. See also World Wide Web. Anything that's freely readable on the internet effectively has unlimited circulation.

  It sounds like we need to re-write it so that editors will realize that statewide sources aren't considered "limited circulation" for AUD's purposes.

  The goal with "limited interest and circulation" is to avoid seriously niche sources (e.g., a source that might cover everything about a very narrow subject, and thus end up being indiscriminate – that's the "limited interest" part) and sources that cannot possibly represent "attention from the world at large" (e.g., a newsletter that is sent to the few dozen remaining widows of WWI veterans – that's the "limited circulation" part). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Good answer. Huggums537 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno...for smaller-population states, a statewide publication probably doesn't have the reach that a major city publication has. It's really a kind of odd idea, this "statewide" source. Some states only have a single major newspaper, and only a single major city, so their major city newspaper covers the entire state. Some states have multiple major cities and multiple major city newspapers, but they only cover the most important things from elsewhere in the state. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are really only a few smaller population states. The rules would apply to the vast majority of everything thing else, and letting some exceptions stand in the way of progress is not productive. Besides, The really smaller ones such as in the NE US probably have overlap and influence with the others such as in the collective known as New England. Huggums537 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) I just realized my view was so narrow it only included the US. Ooops. Lol...

• For me the main problem with WP:AUD has always been the way that there are, obviously, very small countries out there with "national" newspapers of a lower calibre even lower than that of the average-sized town. However, it serves a useful purpose and I'd not like to see it weakened. FOARP (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  What about WP:NPOV? Small countries don't get articles no more? Huggums537 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly is the NPOV angle? Maybe summarize your understanding of NPOV and how it applies here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  My view about small countries [and thus how they fit into the AUD perspective] is best summed up by WP:WORLDVIEW, and I think a better understanding of NPOV is one of the keys to solving this. Huggums537 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  NPOV for me means that all people are more or less equal no matter where they live, we shouldn't be privileging people from large countries over small ones and we shouldn't be privileging people from small countries over large ones (which is what you appear to be proposing). In a news outlet covers 5 million people why does it matter whether those 5 million people live in a city or a city state? Isn't that the exact opposite of WORLDVIEW? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I guess that depends on the situation, but if asking people to look at their bias privileges one size over another, then that is exactly what I'm proposing, and that applies more so if the smaller country privileges over the larger one because that is what is required to overcome the unbalance. If all things were equal, then of course I agree with you that we should not be privileging, but things are obviously not equal. Maybe to you they might be, but I think you would be the rare exception. Huggums537 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Small countries are disproportionally wealthy and their views are proportionally overrepresented. I get where you're coming from, but privileging Belgium over the DRC is the exact opposite of where you're coming from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, it depends on the country and the situation, or if there is in fact any bias. So, in the examples you are talking about, then yeah privileging would be inappropriate. Huggums537 (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a perfect example of the bias written into this very guidance at WP:NGO: where the bullet point for Caveat says that an international group with less than 60 members worldwide is not an international group even if they have members and subchapters in different countries worldwide. It's these little "caveats" like this that are kind of like a biased gotcha that says "members only" international groups. Huggums537 (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @FOARP, AUD isn't about the "quality" of the sources. AUD is about whether the source is likely to cover absolutely every little thing. You might be able to get the flavor of the idea from one of the original discussions ("In a small town, practically any small business is "newsworthy" -- within the town. Opening a barbershop is front-page news in a small enough market"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• WP:AUD was and should be concerned with situations where coverage of a company is limited to a smaller city (with no SIGCOV in regional or national sources). Extending it to newspapers in the largest American cities leads to illogical results. The top five metropolitan statistical areas in the United States each have populations in excess of 7 million -- greater than half of the countries in the world. It's absurd to argue for a policy that (1) SIGCOV in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or Dallas Morning News is "local" and therefore to be disregarded, but that (2) SIGCOV in "national" media outlets from countries with smaller populations should receive full weight toward showing notability. Cbl62 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Depends on the type of coverage, for the most part. Why should city size matter? Would every article published in a major city (regardless of the reliability of the newspaper) pass AUD simply because the city is large? It would be wise to focus more on the contents of the source itself. Does the article indicate the restaurant/venue/business is notable beyond the block/street/city in which it exists? Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think if the source gives the address/phone number/hours of the business it covers that's a real good indication it's aimed at a local audience. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Also, if it gives prices, unless the prices are the subject of meaningful comments. I think more attention should be given to Native advertising, as opposed to small town news, while noting that small business native advertising is more common in small town news. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Why should city size matter?" Because we associate size of audience with notability. For this reason, something published in a small-town newspaper is less likely to bestow notability. And, no, nobody is arguing that every article published in a major city publication bestows notability. The publication needs to be reliable and independent, and the coverage needs to be in depth. These are basic principles of noatbility. Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, analyzing the contents of a source is one of the best ways to tell if an organization or company is notable. If, for example, the New York Times publishes a review of a restaurant that is written in a way that indicates it is barely notable even to the residents of NYC who live on the same street the restaurant is located, it would likely fail AUD. I am not asserting that all restaurants in NYC fail AUD, of course not. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  NCORP (and WP:N) is based on the premise that a subject is notable when there is evidence it has has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. That a local restaurant is considered noteworthy enough to report on isn't because of the reporting source's audience size or its prestige. A journalist hired to write reviews of restaurants in their city is going to write those reviews regardless of how many people read them. But if a reporter from the Seattle Times writes an article on a restaurant in NYC, is that not stronger evidence of notability than if a reporter in NYC wrote on it, despite ST's smaller audience?

  And anyway, if the source of the piece is a regular customer/client/etc. of the place being discussed, it automatically fails independence regardless of the audience size. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why are you talking about evidence of notability? The standard under discussion here is indication of notability which is entirely different. As for the argument about evidence of notability there you are completely wrong, the coverage in the two different papers would count for the exact same amount assuming it was of the same length and quality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say they would "count" toward notability differently, I said they would provide different evidence of notability, such as might come into consideration in a NOPAGE situation.

  I brought the first paragraph up to rebut the idea that audience size somehow directly affects the noteworthiness of an org prior to its being covered. How does this make sense: a restaurant in a large city being covered by the local newspaper's "[city] restaurants" section would not be notable, and yet identical coverage by the city's "regional" newspaper's "[city] restaurants" section would be. In both cases, the reason the restaurant was profiled (its "noteworthiness") was because a reporter chose it from a limited selection (restaurants in [city]) for a paper column serving to promote local business. Why would it matter to the restaurant's claim to notability that one story reached more people? Especially when none of those people outside its home territory have noted it themselves. The number of shares a story has or the number of subscribers a verified youtube channel has are immaterial to whether a topic is notable elsewhere on wiki, why should those be factors at NCORP where the subjects almost all have much more money and incentive to engage in self-promotion (SEO etc.)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  We already exclude promotional content, note however that the article you just described is not promotional content as wikipedia understands it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  And, no, nobody is arguing that every article published in a major city publication bestows notability. I think some people are arguing the equivalent of this. Check Kafeneion, a six-week old popup restaurant in Melbourne which has been covered by The Age twice. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  This sort of situation makes me wish that WP:N's nutshell text – "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" – were not just in the nutshell.

  In practice, if the attention falls away after a while, we'll delete it or merge it to another article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well...but can we, under notability is not temporary? Valereee (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Notability is in a sense temporary, a new consensus on notability can be made at any time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get that. We can reconvene in ten years to agree that something was just a flash in the pan. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Native advertising, aka sponsored content, is non-independent and therefore never an indication of notability. I think we should give more attention to editors pretending that they magically know that a given newspaper article was secretly paid for by the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Pretending they magically know, or see cues of sponsored content such as fawning positive comment. Yes, more attention on why something is to be considered nonindependent, and less assuming nonindependent because the newspaper is local. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Explicitly labeling sponsored content is required in most developed countries, including the US. Do you think sources such as newspapers and magazines break the law often enough for that to be something editors constantly need to be looking out for? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  (BTW, we aren't assuming that a local newspaper is non-independent. We're assuming that they're often indiscriminate, and as such as willing to review unremarkable businesses just because they exist, and not because they're even remotely noteworthy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing, I think there are ways to make an end run. A lot of publications will accept contributed content. So all you have to do is contribute content. In the case of publications that aren't really providing much editorial oversight or fact checking, voila. Valereee (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Freely contributed content is not native advertising. No payment = not native advertising.

  Here's an example:

  Sue Gardner (former head of WMF) started a blog some years ago. One of the first things she wrote was an endorsement of some products she (really really really) likes. You can read it at https://suegardner.org/2014/04/28/the-very-best-travel-products/ It's full of the kind of puffery that drives some editors nuts ("Drawbacks: None. Zero!"), but we've absolutely no reason to think that it's anything other than someone gushing about a product they genuinely believe is perfect.

  Imagine this being posted online through different means:

  • She wrote it and posted it on her own blog: not native advertising
  • She submitted it to another website, which paid her $20 to run it: not native advertising
  • She submitted it to another website, which agreed to post it without payment: not native advertising
  • She (or someone selling the products she was writing about) paid another website to post it: that is native advertising.

  A publication that isn't providing much editorial oversight or fact-checking is not one that scores high on our list of characteristics that indicate a source will be reliable, but the opposite of "reliable" is "unreliable", not "paid advertising". WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's why it's an end run. There's a whole set of websites, Voyage Group of Magazines, that operates local guides. It's slick, and anyone can submit a story, and I've stumbled across multiple about local businesses. I'm sure there are multiple other similar websites out there. It doesn't fall under the sponsored content rules, but my guess is that most of the stories are at minimum COI. They even talk about their editorial policies, in a way that could fool a lot of editors. This "rising star" story is clearly an autobio; she even slips up occasionally and uses "I". Valereee (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think these exaggerated and often extreme definitions of "COI" have gotten way out of hand. It is ''very'' common for authors to edit as someone else other than themselves under the use of pen names or stage names, and the site you are on right now is more than enough evidence of that, but Mark Twain, Ayn Rand, Anne Rice, George Orwell, and Lewis Carroll are all famous examples if you need them. [[Stan Lee]] edited, ''and'' published a whole comic book company as well as doing movie production under his pen name. I agree with WAID that it boils down to if the source is reliable or not, and this idea about Wikipedia editors trying to play the job of doing editorial oversight and fact checking for the sources is way over the top out of line with the purview of our mandate. Our only mandate is to make sure the sources do a reasonable job of fact checking, not going in there to argue about how we would be doing things if we were running the show, and there is a Wikipedia:Systemic bias where some editors think that if a source does not comply with ''our'' rules (such as COI), then the source is somehow invalidated, but the simple truth is that this Wikipedified mindset is all wrong since sources often do not, and can not comply with many of our rules. For example, the press is fully allowed to express free speech, whereas we have very strict rules that limit and govern speech on how we can talk about other living persons, so where the press might say one thing, it might not be allowed on here because of our rules. Also, as WAID pointed out in this post the content is really not relevant as long as we are making sure the source is reasonably reliable. Every news publication in the ''world'' has ''a column to fill" so to all of them by the end of the week it's just another "end run". Making out ordinary job descriptions such as daily column fillers and people who write as someone other than themselves as something so awful makes it seem like either your standards are too impossibly high to meet or you aren't really being sincere about them. Huggums537 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Are you directing you aren't really being sincere at me? Because I am completely sincere; Voyage Group of Magazines and other similar sources should not be considered independent or reliable. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, not at you, but at your idea being too high of a standard if you were sincere about it. Huggums537 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Huggums, that website is absolutely a means of self-promotion for local businesses and creatives. It's literally their business model. Did you read the rising star piece? She marketing herself to local brands: She is "happy to work with local fashion designers as a brand ambassador and content creator." Valereee (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I didn't take a real extremely close look at that website, and for all I know it might be reliable or independent, and it might not, but my agonizing concern was the arguments [and standards] you were using for why. Huggums537 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  The why is that they accept submissions from people and businesses writing about themselves to market themselves within the local area. It all has to be considered self-source: fine for filling in details like the person's parents' names and their alma mater and major and date of graduation and where they live, but not for demonstrating their notability in the first place. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have convinced me to take a closer look, and I'm sorry, but we are not supposed to be analyzing or interpreting the sources ourselves for this very reason because those places where you say she "slipped up", and referred to herself as "I" thus revealing her "evil plot" to conceal a self promotional autobiography could also just as easily be interpreted as places where the author simply failed to quote properly or a printing mishap where quotes could not appear on the page for whatever reason. I mean you are probably right, but there just isn't any proof, and even if there were any it really isn't up to us anyway nor should it be. Huggums537 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, if I had to guess, it looks like she had some existing content about herself that she just went through and exchanged out every "she" for an "I", but ended up missing a few spots due to some bad proofreading, like I said though, it isn't for us to analyze, interpret or speculate on any of that... Huggums537 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's absolutely what it looks like, and clearly the site didn't proofread it either, which means: no editorial oversight. Which generally means not reliable, at minimum. Valereee (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unreliable sources are unreliable. We don't have to claim that they're paid advertisements (or to try to hide the fact of "paid" behind "native"), just because they're unreliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This started with the discussion of an end run around Explicitly labeling sponsored content is required in most developed countries. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think Wikipedia has an extremely bad case of the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome to the point where COI, "sponsored content", and "vested interest" has been claimed on the most trivial things until we have no idea what a real COI is or what truly sponsored content or vested interests really actually even means in the correct sense of the terms anymore... Huggums537 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and indiscriminate, especially in the case of restaurants, often means there's a weekly column to fill. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:WhatamIdoing, yes, I think editors should always be thinking about source independence from the subject. A law on sponsored content doesn’t give a free pass. Does the newspaper have to declare sponsorship due to the writer receiving special service?

  Are the following two sources independent of the restaurant?

  1. https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/so-very-melbourne-why-humble-greek-restaurant-kafeneion-is-an-instant-classic-20230615-p5dgqr.html

  2. https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/melbourne-eating-out/con-christopoulos-set-to-finally-open-a-greek-restaurant-in-melbourne-20230517-p5d96k.html

  —- SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Age, according to our article, is "a daily newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, that has been published since 1854" and "a newspaper of record for Australia, and has variously been known for its investigative reporting, with its journalists having won dozens of Walkley Awards, Australia's most prestigious journalism prize". The author is identified at the top of the first link as "our critic", and the linked page identifies her title as "Chief restaurant critic" and says she is "the anonymous chief restaurant critic for The Age and Good Weekend." The second link is written by someone whose job title is "Food journalist" and further described as "Good Food's Melbourne-based reporter and co-editor of The Age Good Food Guide 2024." Staff journalists at major daily newspapers are assumed to be independent of the subjects unless explicitly disclosed otherwise.

  Notice that I'm not looking at the content of the article. Unless the content of the article says something like "I decided to invest in this business" or "My mother works at this restaurant", the content is irrelevant. Independence is about the relationship between the author (e.g., the restaurant critic) and the subject (e.g., the restaurant being reviewed). It's not about whether a restaurant critic thinks the restaurant is any good, and it's not about whether the publication's style emphasizes the positive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let me address another point more directly:

  Restaurant critics are often recognized and treated differently. At high-end restaurants, being able to recognize restaurant critics is considered a key job skill for managers, and the names/phone numbers/other ids they use to create reservations are traded as valuable currency. (If you can manage it, I suggest making friends with a restaurant critic and asking them to set up the reservation for you on any special occasion.)

  But the fact that the restaurant voluntarily chooses to treat some customers (including, but not limited to: restaurant critics, politicians, and celebrities) as "special" customers does not actually create any "dependence" between the restaurant and the critic.

  I don't even think in this case that the ordinary feelings of gratitude apply – the way you might feel if a neighbor did a favor for you. Restaurant critics know that all of the restaurants are trying to exploit them. It probably feels like the endless supply of sycophants that royal people have to endure. After a while, it's more annoying than anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Completely agree that professional restaurant critics for reliable media are writing independently and should be considered that. Valereee (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Note that with art, film, music, and literature reviews from professional critics in reliable sources count towards notability. Why should we treat the culinary arts differently? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing we should, did you think I was? Valereee (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, wait, w/re local? Yeah, restaurants are inherently local. You can't enjoy them without actually being in the same place as they are. Is that what you mean? Valereee (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  The same is true of a movie or a book. You can't enjoy them without actually being in the same place as they are. Thats also more or less true for art and music. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes you can. The book is published in NYC. The reviewer is in Chicago. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can't eat in a restaurant unless you're actually at that restaurant. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can't read a book unless you actually have the book. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the location of the publisher is irrelevant in a way that the location of a restaurant isn't. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  And why would that be? Restaurants often have ownership from outside their immediate area, isn't a Chicago restaurant owned by a New York company the direct equivalent of the book published in NYC and reviewed in Chicago? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because reading a book isn't inherently joined to the location the book was published. Eating a restaurant meal is inherently joined to the location of the restaurant. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not true, during COVID I patronized a number of restaurants without ever setting foot in them. Even during normal times some restaurants, for example those that operate out of ghost kitchens aren't even possible to eat at. It is perfectly possible for one to review a restaurant you have never set foot in. In the same way one may review a chain comprehensively rather than reviewing individual locations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you about the chain restaurants, but for most local/individual restaurants, location does matter, assuming your goal is to eat the food. Takeout places, including ghost kitchens, tend to feed people within a distance that can be reached before the food gets cold. They are of practical interest to people who are in the local area, or who can get to the local area.

  That said, I've thought about writing an article on Rube's Steakhouse for years, and perhaps someday I'll do it. It will be of practical interest only to people who can get to the middle of Iowa in time for dinner, but it will be (and has been, in national magazines) of interest to a wide variety of people as it is reportedly the first ever grill-your-own steakhouse. It's "of interest" to people who eat there, but it's also "of interest" to people who want to start their own restaurants or to know more about how steakhouses operate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The goal is not only to eat the food, unless I'm mistaken it is the restaurant which is the notable thing not the food... For example for a brick and mortar restaurant their architecture could also be the subject of significant coverage. When it comes to architectural reviews its actually pretty rare for the reviewer/panel to physically visit the site. Even on the food shipping side I think you will find we live in a brave new world, see Food & Wine's article "17 Iconic Restaurant Foods That Ship Nationwide"[1] for examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Typically it's the food. The restaurant can be a draw for sure, but without the food, no. Valereee (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm only answering this because I've seen in past discussions that not answering things might lead to closers thinking there was no answer because one editor couldn't respond. Carryout/delivery is still local business. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

...I think you will find we live in a brave new world... I love this. I always appreciate a fellow kindred spirit who thinks outside the box in a way that is mindful of the future and even the present waves of change for that matter. Huggums537 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• A source providing address/phone number/hours of the business it covers doesn't mean "local audience". If that were true, then any worldwide source with a "contact us" web page on their website would be excluded as "local". I can see it now. We can't use that source. It's targeted to a local Earth audience! Huggums537 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think what you are describing is WP:ABOUTSELF, not a secondary independent source. S0091 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  That isn't the point. Yelp or whatever and plenty of review sites routinely provide business information, and it is sheer nonsense to insinuate that information is "just for the locals". Huggums537 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  We certainly wouldn't consider Yelp a reliable source, though. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  The whole point behind the distribution of information is to make sure that it isn't "just for the locals"... Huggums537 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. The point behind AUD is to make sure that the coverage isn't indiscriminate and the coverage reflects WP:N's goal of "attention from the world at large". Something could be intended "just for the locals" but still end up getting attention from the world at large (e.g., Viral video). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I get your point about the intentions of AUD, but I stand behind my point behind the distribution of information, which I admit was actually off topic, and didn't have much to do with AUD. I also think that when you view your example through those two different lenses you see different things. From my perspective about the distribution of information the process of sharing a video (ie. distribution) becomes the single most integral part of it "going viral" in the first place so it is highly debatable whether it was ever intended for "just the locals". Most video platforms are intended for world-wide audiences bearing the point you made yourself earlier about "unlimited distribution", and even true with facebook who markets/advertises to the whole world makes posting a video not a thing intended for "just the locals" anymore unless you set specific "friends only" privacy settings. Huggums537 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re: I think if the source gives the address/phone number/hours of the business it covers that's a real good indication it's aimed at a local audience. Or if it describes the business as "New India Express on Howell in the Garden District." Valereee (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. That kind of makes sense in a way because most locals would probably understand where the business is located using that kind of language, but this assumes that people outside the area don't have the common understanding that roads and highways often go by more than one name or that larger cities or towns often have smaller neighborhoods or communities with different names within them so they could find "New India Express" just as easily as any locals who might not be familiar with their own neighborhoods and communities. Why would they be so stupid as to assume everybody in town (and only people in town) knows what they are talking about? Nobody is ever new to the area, visiting, planning to visit, or has a map? Huggums537 (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that it is fine as is. BTW at quick glance that article should have also failed on depth of coverage. My own observation of how the wp:notability ecosystem works ( Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) is that it considers three factors together (the first given the most weight)

1. Presumed or confirmed availability of suitable material to build a real article from
2. Some gauge of real world notability/impact/importance
3. Degree of enclyclopedic-ness

Note that I said "taken together", neither of the last two is a stand-alone requirement.

IMO the "Non-local" source aspect of the source requirement is intended as gauge of #2. I.E. the recognition by the source via covering them in depth itself matters on #2, and also the degree of depth of coverage that they decided to dedicate to the subject is also an indicator. Under this metric, the nature of the source matters, and "local source only" coverage on a business means that it is not a meaningful indicator. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If one wants to define "local" following the above intent, the "question case" becomes a larger scale source which happens to be located locally. IMO the system would tend to judge their standard of inclusion for that type of article. If it's their "local restaurant reviewer" section, it would get discounted. If it's an area that only allows items of interest to their entire subscriber area, that would count. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• The key to AUD is distribution. Distribution gives an indication of how many people will have heard about the subject business based on coverage in the outlet. The larger the distribution, the more people will know about the business (ie the more notable the business is).

To illustrate: in my town in rural upstate NYS, there are several newspapers sold… these can be categorized into three classes -

1) papers with a national distribution (NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Post).

2) papers with a regional distribution (Plattsburgh Press Republican, Albany Times-Union).

3) a weekly paper with a purely local distribution (The Valley News).

A business that gets covered by the national distribution papers is (or at least has the potential of becoming) known to millions of readers - all over the world.

A business that gets covered by the regional distribution papers will become known to hundreds of thousands of readers.

A business that gets covered by the local distribution paper gets known to a few hundred readers.

It’s the number of potential readers that matters. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Which then means a business in Staten Island is inherently more notable than one in Atlanta, which to me is absurd. If the Staten Island business has only been covered by the NYT and the one in Atlanta has been covered by the Chicago Tribune and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the one in Atlanta has been shown to be notable. The one in Staten Island has not. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

What is this weird ass concept of ''more'' notable? I thought either something ''is' notable or it ''isn't''. I've never seen anything in the notability guideline talking about one thing having ''more'' notability than another. According to your examples, and what @Blueboarr has said, I would say that both businesses are notable, and see no reason why it would matter why one should be ''more'' notable than another. Millions of things are more notable than others, but so what? Huggums537 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say "is more likely to be notable".

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution – the biggest paper in the state of Georgia – is not a "local" source. An article in AJC or an article in NYT should be treated the same under AUD because neither of them are "local" and both of them show WP:N's goal of "attention from the world at large".

But... I don't think it's absurd that we'd end up with more notable Staten Island businesses. I think there are twice as many restaurants in Staten Island than in Atlanta (the city proper). So if every restaurant (or other local business) in the country has the same small chance of being notable, then we'd be twice as likely to find a notable restaurant on Staten Island as we are in Atlanta. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that coverage only in either paper constitutes attention from the world at large. But, yes, there are likely to be more notable restaurants (and yes, of course, I'm not talking about something being more notable, but more of them that are notable, it was just a poor choice of language) in heavily populated and wealthier areas. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This guideline requires at least two sources, so coverage in only one paper isn't enough anyway. But you shouldn't simply exclude the biggest daily newspaper on grounds of AUD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting excluding it at all. I'm suggesting that it's one source of the (multiple, however you choose to define that) sources needed, and that I'd like to see what I typically see for notable businesses, which is coverage from someone other than the newspaper the primarily covers the city in which the business is located. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:notable can mean either the attribute which we a measuring (which can have varying degrees) or be shorthand for "sufficiently wp:notable to pass the wp:notability requirement" which is a yes/no question rather than a matter of degree. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following this different degrees concept. This is either way above my pay grade, or it is such an extreme view that it isn't mainstream. What's it all about? Huggums537 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Should a restaurant in Staten Island only covered in the NYT be considered more notable than one in Atlanta only covered by the Journal-Constitution? I would say Yes… as more people will have (potentially) read about it. However, Huggums is correct in noting this does not matter. Since the bar under AUD is set intentionally low, and includes regional papers. To go back to my example of papers sold my town… the only one that does NOT indicate Notability is the local distribution “Valley News”… even if it were to include a review of the top five new restaurants on the Champs Élysées in Paris. The paper’s distribution is too small to indicate notability. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Poor Wyoming doesn't have a shot. Casper Star-Tribune, while state wide, only has a circulation of around 12k. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup… Hopefully, someone from Michelin is a rodeo fan. Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell me about it... I've been trying to find sources which meet WP:N for Wyoming highways and most of the time the Casper Star-Tribune is all there is and it isn't much... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, some of these out of the way places do have a shot these days. Because if there's a fabulous restaurant in Cody -- something worth a side trip or even a visit -- someone somewhere will be noticing and writing about it. There's a lil' place called The Beak in Sitka, Alaska, where the chef was a James Beard semifinalist this year. I'm collecting sources. :D Valereee (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, we are not limited to only newspaper reviews to establish notability for restaurants. There are restaurant guides, well respected websites and other sources that can establish notability. WP:AUD is really just a statement about which newspaper reviews do NOT establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

AUD is intentionally written so that the Casper Star-Tribune is acceptable. AUD also accepts national news outlets from even the smallest countries. There are whole countries that have fewer citizens than there are subscribers to the Casper Star-Tribune. That's okay. If your newspaper is the biggest fish in the pond, then it's acceptable under AUD, even if it's a very small pond. (Also, AUD doesn't apply to highways...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should it matter at all how many people have heard of a thing (which, with online news, is basically meaningless)? The standard should be how many/how widely people are publishing their own commentary on the thing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

+1. I don't even know how to find out how many people actually read the local paper any more. They read articles here and there online. Valereee (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the standard be based on what reliable sources are publishing about and not what people in general are publishing about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people are publishing their own commentary on social media, which of course is worthless for notability purposes.

We are ultimately looking for "attention from the world at large". That's better demonstrated by readers than by publishers. Consider, e.g., two articles, each read by 10,000 people, vs 20 articles, each read by 10 people. 20,000 impressions is a better indication of "attention from the world at large" than 200 impressions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Depends on who the impressions are on, an article in Jezebel (website) is not a better indicator of notability than an article in International Studies Quarterly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I mean publishing their own commentary in RS. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. "Attention from the world at large" requires the "world at large" to publish their attention in RS, otherwise we would not have anything to write about the subject that actually reflects that attention, and we can't even verify that there was attention. We don't use YouTube subscriber numbers or view counts or Instagram followers as metrics for determining notability of any person or website; why would we invert that for businesses, the subjects that literally have employees dedicated to promoting visibility?? JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You're the one arguing for using metrics to determine notability, not me. I go by coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't care if the world at large is even aware of a topic, all thats needed is coverage even if only 200 career academics care about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am working within the framework of NCORP's existing AUD requirement, not regular GNG or SNGs.

If NCORP's stance is that local media is not sufficient to demonstrate "attention from the world at large" because it is more likely to have coverage that is indiscriminate or of murky independence or less reliable or routine or whatever, then those properties will not be changed in a way actionable on Wikipedia by just raising the number or geographical range of potential consumers of that coverage. "Attention" via number of pageviews is not something that we can write in an article on the subject. In that regard, pageviews from distant readers are no different. Only "attention" as represented by coverage in SIRS counts toward notability because that's the only form of attention that is possible to use in an article. If distant readership can modify the usability of the coverage, transforming it from local to regional, then the content of the coverage should actually reflect that wider readership and be distinguishable from lower-circulation coverage by being discriminate, clearly independent, and more reliable, and should not resemble routine news from a local source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

AUD says "is not an indication of notability" not "an indication that it isn't notable" so you would appear to be operating well outside of AUD's coverage. The wording is clear that a source with attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation could in fact be notable, it just isn't likely to be. If you want NCORP to say that something which only gets coverage in those sources is categorically not notable I suggest you propose a re-write. NCORP isn't a regular SNG? What makes it different from all the other SNG? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of AUD states On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Since we are discussing how to define the requisite non-local source, I am rebutting the claim that the number of readers of the source either indicates or represents "attention from the world at large".

The argument as I see it is that "having more readers" means a source is "attention from the world at large"; however, what "attention" means in the context of notability everywhere on Wiki, including NCORP, is "published SIRS sourcing", not "consumers of the sourcing".

Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product.

We need to have verification that that notice has been published, so existence of non-local readers would not satisfy the requirement of non-local attention.

If the argument isn't actually that non-local readership constitutes "attention from the world at large" and is literally equivalent to coverage published non-locally, then that means AUD isn't really about "attention from other places" so much as "lots of people have potentially heard of this". This construction is totally at odds with the way view counts and follower numbers are completely ignored when assessing notability for any other subject. But if we are instead treating circulation size and distance as a proxy for certain source properties that suggest coverage in it is more indicative of notability, then what are those properties and how are they relevant to being "non-local"?

"Regular" applied only to GNG in that sentence, but no, NCORP is not a regular SNG either as it explicitly dictates what types of sources do and do not count towards GNG notability for companies rather than providing achievement-based criteria that simply predict GNG will be met. Most SNGs are the latter; a subject can either meet a criterion and be presumed to meet GNG (with presumption power ranging from low for NSPORT to high for some other SNGs), or they can meet GNG directly. NCORP uniquely defines what GNG is for companies, so it's not possible for primary criteria subjects to fail NCORP but still meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confused by the statement that what "attention" means in the context of notability everywhere on Wiki, including NCORP, is "published SIRS sourcing" For example, the nutshell statement of WP:N refers to topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time - there isn't any reason I can see why "attention" in this context would assume SIRS which, as written, is limited in application to organizations (and extension of which to other domains has repeatedly met with disapproval from the enwiki community).

sidebar about "regular SNGs"

For the record, I haven't seen any documentation that "most SNGs" are presumptions of GNG coverage - some (like the current NSPORT) are worded this way, but many (including the current ANYBIO, CREATIVE and BOOK, as well as NPROF) are not. And other SNGs besides NORG (like NBASIC, NFILM, NBOOK and NNUMBER) also define what types of sources do and don't count towards WP:N in a specific domain. And I would also point that the GNG itself, like most SNGs, is presumptive of Notability and does not guatantee Notability. That isn't a difference between the SNGs and the GNG, except when some SNGs give stronger assurances about Notability than the GNG does.

Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Only "attention" as represented by coverage in SIRS counts toward notability because that's the only form of attention that is possible to use in an article seems to me to be a strange inversion of what NCORP actually does in practice. It is perfectly possible to use sources that are imperfect in terms of SIRS to write an encyclopaedia article, and in areas outsode of NCORP's domain this is done fairly routinely. But community consensus has established that a higher bar of Notability is required when it comes to organizations, (put simply) to compensate for the resources many organizations devote to self-promotion. However, SIRS sources are certainly not the only ones that can be used to build an article, and it seems strange to me to present the opposite logic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - AUD

I’m getting the feeling that a lot of the people in this discussion have never actually read WP:AUD. All it is saying is that purely local sources are not good enough to establish notability. That is a very low bar. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, very low bar. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AUD requires that companies have coverage from at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source. That is a very low bar, particularly so given that regional sources can be smaller than statewide/province-wide. The point is to say that we don't want to host articles on businesses that are only covered by (hyper-)local media. The average mom-and-pop store in the 1990s United States is going to probably have had coverage multiple times in local media, and we don't necessarily want to host articles on Joe Schmoe's Hardware Store merely when a hyperlocal newsweekly and a local daily paper gave it significant coverage.

Notability is about whether or not something is worthy of note; for businesses, I think that a requirement that at least one WP:SIRS-level source be from a (sub-state) regional publication isn't so high of a bar that it would lead us to systematically excluding coverage of businesses that are genuinely worthy of note. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What people are arguing in this thread is that the average mom-and-pop store in a large city can pass NCORP when it receives coverage in two newspapers that are both based in and focused on the city if one of the papers also covers the region surrounding the city, even if the coverage of the store appears in its "local" section. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like JJ has brought up a very important point here that those who are saying AUD is a low bar seem to be quickly dismissive of the fact that some valid concerns and arguments have been raised in this discussion, with the example JJ provided being but one of them. As an aside, my thoughts on the one example provided by JJ are that "Based in", and "focused on" are two completely different things. Just because a news source is "based in" a local area does not mean that it is solely "focused on" the area it is "based in" since I'm sure any news organization has an interest in providing some world/national news to ever expanding markets outside where they are "based in" for growth reasons. Huggums537 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s a little more than just local shops being written about in local sources. To go back to my example (above) about the print newspapers available in my home town - let’s say the editor of the (purely local) “Valley News” goes on vacation to Paris, France - and writes a review of a restaurant he ate in one night. That review isn’t about something local to the town, but it is aimed at a purely local (limited) audience. I don’t think this review would be enough to indicate that the Parisian restaurant was notable. It would not pass AUD - nor should it. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem I see with this reasoning is that it requires a source to essentially be an international or worldwide distributor because according to this reasoning any coverage about any subject could be easily dismissed just by simply saying it was targeted to the area where the source is based from. Any source from Anytown, USA that covers anything in the world could be booted on the premise that it was only targeted to Anytown. A simple read of AUD says that if a subject only gets attention from the local area it is not notable, but if it gets any attention outside the area it is. Your argument goes against this very simple reading by admitting there is attention of the subject outside the area where the subject is located, but then demands that it doesn't pass AUD because it was aimed at a purely local (limited) audience of the “Valley News”, but this totally ignores the entire audience in Paris where the subject is actually located no matter whether there is in fact actual coverage in that market or not. Huggums537 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It does not ignore an audience in Paris, it acknowledges that there IS no audience in Paris. The only way someone in Paris would ever even see a copy of the Valley News is if someone from my rural upstate NY town personally mailed it to them. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you are confusing the fact that what we need is for the subject to have received attention from the world at large, not the source itself. So, saying that the restaurant in Paris has no audience or attention from locals in Paris just because the Valley News is not getting attention from the world at large in the form of an audience from Paris doesn't seem to add up. People in Paris may or may not (statistically not) read Valley News, but they do read Wikipedia, and the fact that this could be about something much more unusual, interesting, useful, or otherwise helpful and of encyclopedic value than an ordinary stupid little restaurant is why we need to keep our focus about this. In other words, you are conflating the attention of the subject itself with the attention of the coverage of the subject and who covers it. It's like saying saying nobody in Paris eats at this restaurant and this restaurant essentially doesn't exist to anybody in Paris because nobody in Paris is able to read the Valley News. For Wikipedia purposes, this restaurant only exists to anyone who reads the Valley News, but in their minds, it exists in Paris, where it actually doesn't exist. At some point we have to examine where our Wikpedified mentality defies common sense. Huggums537 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To expand on what I'm trying to talk about in a way that any indoctrinated Wikipedia editor can understand, let me say that the viewpoint you were expressing puts an inordinate amount of focus on notability to the point that it defies objective reality, and this is mainly due to the fact that it also puts this undo focus on secondary sources as if they were the only thing that matter, but when you factor in that primary and tertiary sources also matter such as the fact that the business registration shows that the restaurant actually does exist in Paris or maybe the yellow Page listing and an employment record for somebody who lives and works there so yeah the local "audience" matters"". Huggums537 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I think AUD may be unclear about this, so here's an example:

• WhatamIdoing's Gas Station is located in Smallville (population: 8,000).
• The Smallville Courier (circulation: 1100) writes an news article about it.
• The Valley News (circulation: 1200, in a Valleyton (population: 9,200, about 100 km away) writes a (different) news article about it.

The Smallville Courier is a local news source for WhatamIdoing's Gas Station. The Valley News is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Can pass NCORP (or at least the AUD subsection of it)? Yes. Will pass NCORP under such barely-over-the-threshold circumstances? Probably not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So, maybe not such a low bar after all then? Huggums537 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors still use their judgement, and they are not required to accept things that barely qualify. If the two sources provide almost no content that could be used in an encyclopedia, or if they weren't secondary sources, then clearing AUD's bar would be irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone argued that? Normally the bar is coverage in three sources not two and I don't see anyone questioning that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

AUD (itself) only requires that there be one source that isn't local/limited. A preference for 3+ sources is real, but not part of AUD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm looking for is three, at least one of which is outside the local area/industry niche publications. I look for that both for my own article creations, at AfC, and at AfD. I don't have a completely hard line on three, but I do on local. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It does not reach enough. The lack of additional term to designate regional paper operating in local reporting capacity as "local" coverage is letting all these local venue (bars, restaurants, etc) that technically pass WP:NCORP but not in the intent of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In my "grand unification observation", (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works ) topics that are weaker on degree of wp:not compliance and which are less enclyclopedic (such as restaurants and other yellow pages type entries) get a tougher interpretation of this and vice versa. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you been following some of the more recent very long drawn restaurant/bar AfDs that ended up non-consensus? Graywalls (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The community occasionally has moments of unusual behavior at AFD. I remember being surprised years ago when AFD insisted that we keep an article whose actual contents could be no more substantial than "This is the Malayalam word for thin gruel." Keeping it was a sensible as having separate articles on water, agua, and eau would have been. But they kept it, and after the furor died down, I did a bold merge-and-redirect, and it's gone now. If AFD's have battles over restaurants and bars, then consider not nominating any such establishments for a month or two. These things usually go back to normal after a few weeks. (And if they don't – well, then the guidelines can be changed to better explain the community's current consensus, but I don't really expect that to be the result right now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

So you definitely haven't been following the numerous recent drawn-out restaurant/bar AfDs centered entirely over geographically local coverage... JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There have only been two AFDs for restaurants (that have closed so far) this month, and both ended as delete. One was a {{db-banned}}; the other alleged solely local coverage and was deleted with 100% of participants agreeing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

NSCHOOL guidelines don't make sense

My understanding is that the 2017 RFC WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME essentially phases out NSCHOOL and schools are expected to meet same notability guidelines as any other companies. I removed non-profit reference but it was reverted by Atlantic306. They're arguing only GNG is relevant to "non-profit". With any company articles though, I hear some editors say there's consensus that companies have to meet CORP, but the wording article has to meet either GNG or SNG and I believe this is in gray area.

The text of WP:NSCHOOL is contradictory. The first sentence indicates they have to meet same guidelines as any other schools followed by the second sentence saying only for-profit has to.

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). 

This needs to be re-written to eliminate contradiction.

Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What contradiction? The first sentence says that it is enough for a non-profit school to pass the general notability guideline (note the "or"), but the second says that specifically for-profit schools have to pass the criteria for commercial organizations. People may argue for different positions, but the current guideline is perfectly clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The language in WP:N is meet GNG or one of the applicable SNGs. After the RFC SCHOOLOUTCOME there's basically no N:SCHOOL. Degree awarding institutions are generally notable and sources don't have to be online according to a guideline I can not find the link for right now.

If the consensus is as what you say, it would be clearer to say for-profit must meet NCORP, non-profit schools can get by with just GNG. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls, the second sentence of the subject-specific notability guideline for organizations does say, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Non-profit schools don't "get by with just GNG", they still have to meet the rigorous standards of general notability, including the policy on WP:NOTADVERTISING, like other subjects on Wikipedia. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

non-profit schools can get by with just GNG. Any article is notable if it passes WP:GNG. No SNG trumps GNG. Not WP:NCORP, not any other SNG. SNGs expand on GNG; they do not replace it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not correct. An SNG can be more strict than the GNG, which NCORP specifically does due to the misuse of WP by businesses and groups for promotional/SEO factors. Masem (t) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't change the requirement to pass either GNG or SNG. Many notable things fail a SNG but pass the GNG, some notable things pass a SNG but fail the GNG, (and a few non-notable things even pass both, thats just how it works). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would for-profit have to meet both GNG and NCORP? Remember "The language in WP:N is meet GNG or one of the applicable SNGs" not "and one of the applicable SNGs" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. If it meets NCORP, it already meets GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"I hear some editors say there's consensus that companies have to meet CORP" I find it hard to believe that there are competent editors saying that... GNG is *always* available as a path to notability, the SNG are supplementary... and that is all, they do not trump or replace GNG. Can you please provide diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO GNG lets NCORP calibrate the GNG source criteria for Ncorp subjects. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And where does GNG say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The section at WP:SNG was the result of a multimonth discussion held a few years ago to clarify the complex nature of SNG to the GNG. NCORP is called out because it has stricter requirements than the core GNG. Masem (t) 15:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The section there says absolutely nothing about a SNG effecting how GNG is applied. In fact it explicitly treats them as separate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just like nearly everything else in the notability guidelines, there is no explicit statement. The reality of what the fuzzy wp:notability ecosysten does is apply the tougher source criteria of NCorp to GNG assessments....clearly so at least for profit making enterprises and less clearly so for others. But the GNG does come pretty close with (bolding added by me): "SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability...and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

How does a statement only about SNG come close to being a statement about GNG? Note that we explicitly state "an SNG or the GNG" (if it meant to imply what you say it implies then it would be "and" not "or") Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That phrase is the nutshell line about notability and is -95% correct. But to try to capture the complex nature of the relationship between the GNG and SNGs would require far more text than the nutshell should be. The prose of WP:N establishes the complexities here, include NCORP being strong than the GNG. Masem (t) 18:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What does strong mean to you in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I could make strong arguments for and against my post. As alluded to in the first sentence of my post, if I went by the "explicit logic" standard which is the basis of your post, the entire set of notability guidelines say almost nothing. But despite that they still guide the fuzzy wp:notability ecosystem, so IMO "explicit logic" is mostly not they way that they are structured/operate. I just try to observe and describe the resultant reality. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, see thats where we depart... I work forwards from policy and guideline, I don't work backwards from the practices of the ignorant... If I did I shudder to think how I would interpret the NPOV policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I'm mostly with you in spirit but such is impossible for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it impossible for wp:notability? The only arguments which count in a notability discussion are those which are based in policy and guideline. People say other things, but those are all ignored by a competent closer and have no actual bearing on notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the policies (specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) say that all policies and guidelines are supposed to be derived from and accurately reflect what you called the practices of the ignorant, then a personal decision to reject the practices of the community in favor of the written descriptions of said practices would itself a violation of two major policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• As part of the 2018 (?) process by which WP:AUD was added to WP:NCORP, and to overcome opposition to its implementation beyond the core area of concern, a compromise was reached whereby certain institutions were excluded from the requirement. The carveout is set forth as follow: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." For-profit schools are not part of the carveout. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cbl62, if I understand the OP correctly, the question is basically "Pursuant to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability, shouldn't this guideline say that all educational institutions are covered by this guideline?" (I created AUD in 2008, not 2018.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• In the 2017 RFC, GNG was usually mentioned as the most appropriate guideline for notability of schools. It already was according to this page, but in practice the OUTCOMES page was used for high schools. WP:AUD was already in WP:NCORP; the redirect was created in 2013. The additional wording about "For-profit educational organizations and institutions" was added in 2018; the assumption, based on the types of American organisations that would include, was that they would probably not be schools. Peter James (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Earned media

I wonder if it would help to link to Earned media in our explanation of desirable sources, to be contrasted with paid advertising and works published by the subject (both of which are undesirable sources, completely useless for demonstrating notability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea in principle, since one of the principles of earned media is that you had to convince a journalist the company was worth writing about. However, the linked article focuses so much on the hype-machine element of earned media that it risks bringing "undesirable sources" into the mix. Compare this, from Earned media

Earned media often refers specifically to publicity gained through editorial influence of various kinds. The media may include any mass media outlets, such as newspaper, television, radio, and the Internet, and may include a variety of formats, such as news articles or shows, letters to the editor, editorials, and polls on television and the Internet.

To this from Forbes[2]

Earned media, more commonly known as publicity or public relations, requires you to convince a gatekeeper at a media outlet — such as an editor or news director — to communicate your message. Usually, this means your message is communicated indirectly, through the words of a journalist.

Even the Forbes wording -- "your message" -- is a red flag re: promotional coverage, but it's clearer than the linked article about the role of the journalist. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What I like about the Wikipedia article is the statement that earned media is something "other than advertising (paid media) or branding (owned media)." As it is a term used by PR departments, I'm not surprised that they are focused on their own activities. Putting "their" terms in here might help them understand what we're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across as excessively negative. I like the idea.

It's just that the article is a mess, and I worry that could become a distraction. I did some poking around, and it was mostly written by two SPA's. One only edited that article and added the examples table, which is blatant WP:COPYVIO[3]. The other is an IP-editor from India that added the same three examples (Shave Club, Oxford dictionary, Assam Tea) to three marketing-related articles and never edited again. Assam got 8 source and the others only one each. Sketchy.

Will try to devote some time to cleaning it up, especially considering the copyvio issue (undetected for 9 years). There is plenty of potential sourcing, not just the Forbes article. Oblivy (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I basically reduced Earned media to a stub and rewrote it.Oblivy (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gotten Earned media to a place where I think it's encyclopedic and not overly focused on the marketers. Note that my reading revealed a bit of a lexical shift away from earned media being in traditional outlets like print and TV news, to social media mentions and buzz. Whatever use this term has probably needs to steer clear of that. Here's a suggestion:

Earned media sources published by reliable web or media outlets may be used, although care needs to be taken to avoid sources where the outlet is effectively paraphrasing a press release or other marketing material generated by the article subject (see the second example under dependant coverage, below).

Perhaps this moves closer towards what you were thinking about? I'm not sure you and I are completely on the same page, and the above is free-hand writing, but it's a suggestion.

On the topic of dependent coverage, would it be helpful to number the dependent coverage examples (as is done, for example, for positive rules in WP:NBAND and WP:NPROF) so we can point to a specific paragraph without just saying "the bullets under dependent coverage"? Just a thought. Oblivy (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an even smaller change?

There's a sentence now that says "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article", and perhaps it could be expanded to say something like "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article; we are looking for earned media instead of branding or paid media." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I like from Forbes:

Puffery is making general claims that can’t be proven, such as: “Our product is the best!”

Puffery is one of my go to tells for undeclared native advertising that renders an entire source inadmissible for the GNG (which doesn’t mean it can’t be used to support content).

A hard definition of puffery , like this, would help. “This product is the best” (no criteria) is puffery. “This author considers this product to be the best” would not be puffery. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The bird picture from MOS:PEACOCK works great. Graywalls (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A little tweak to the language proposed by @WhatamIdoing

"Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article. However, this does not exclude the use of Earned media published by reliable sources."

Not sure where puffery would go if included. I considered using the term "produced by reliable sources" (to center the role of the journalist/editors) but per the discussion above there's a risk that concerned editors would argue reliance on facts provided by the company makes it "produced" by the company. Oblivy (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Oblivy, I like that wording. Maybe "...published by independent reliable sources"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I like that change. Oblivy (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I went with a simpler version, that I believe no one will object to: Only unpaid sources count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That specific wording could be argued to exclude peer-reviewed publications that charge a submission fee. Which would be an incredibly tendentious reading, but guidelines should ideally be abuse-proof. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A wikilawyer-proof approach is a good one, but I'm not really sure how to say "It's okay to pay J. Important Stuff to publish the article you wrote after it goes through their review process (except when the journal is predatory), but it's not okay to pay Local Daily News to publish the article you wrote after it goes through their review process".

I'm not sure that it comes up all that often in the context of organizations, businesses, and products, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Do festivals fall under WP:CORP?

A festival is an organized event. As such, a strong argument can be made that a festival is an organization, or is a service of an organization, both of which fall under this guideline.

I came across Mushroom Mardi Gras Festival, which seems to be cited exclusively to local community news sources, not something with a national or at least regional scope as required by this guideline.

Do we have a guideline on festivals? Or would it be appropriate to add a clarification in this guideline? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Most festivals have a parent organization that exists solely to run the festival, conventions, etc. (or maybe two-three other events) and I would agree that NCORP must be applied to this level for this reason. Masem (t) 02:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not applicable to the mushroom society, but there is an exception to WP:NCORP if the group that runs the festival is a "non-profit educational institution" or religious organization. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevant guideline is WP:NEVENT. S0091 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I would expect most participants at AFD to compare the subject against NEVENT or the GNG, but there is no single required approach. If you think that the organization is the more appropriate guideline, then you can argue for NORG. If the next person thinks that NEVENT is the more applicable approach, then they can argue for that. Nobody gets to decide what the other editors will choose.

@Anachronist, if you'd like to make that article go quietly away, then I suggest that a Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers to Morgan Hill, California#Culture might be more successful than AFD, especially since the festival has received significant coverage (500+ words) in a major regional newspaper.[4] WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm not sure if the article should go away, although at the moment I'm viewing it as not meeting the WP:CORP threshold. The San Jose Mercury News is a regional paper, but for this purpose it's a local paper. It's like a local New York City event covered by only the New York Times and a few local tabloids and nothing outside the city, not something I would call notable just because a major regional paper happens to cover an event local to that paper. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we have an RfC on this last year and decide that this *isn't* what we mean by local? We mean scale not distance? (A single news source would still not put it over the bar of course, we would as always want significant coverage in multiple independent sources) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We had a couple of discussions here earlier this year, but I don't remember them actually turning into RFCs.

@Anachronist, you might find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement useful. Think about the practicality of it. 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement is the longer version. Perhaps it's clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there may very well be situations where the notable party isn't the festival per-say but the organizing group/commission. But its going to be contextual, there are certainly festivals who have outlived a dozen or more official organizing groups. The vast majority of festivals will not fall under WP:CORP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So the unsatisfactory answer is: festivals CAN come under NCORP, but not always. They can also come under NEVENT. But when in doubt… go with GNG. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you tell your boss?

I once asked this question. I was told there is an answer for those who come to the Help Desk or Teahouse saying their boss has told them to write a Wikipedia article about the company. That answer is not in the list of essays.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

For ease of use, I have redirected Wikipedia:What do you tell your boss?, Wikipedia:What do you tell your boss, and Wikipedia:What to tell your boss to that essay. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Animal breeds

Animal breeds, especially ones that do not yet have recognition by governing orgs, are almost by definition products of commercial enterprises. Should they be evaluated under NCORP? I've been seeing some activity at AfC recently and realized pages on breeds can very easily become promotional vehicles for catteries. While such sources wouldn't be independent for GNG purposes either, a lot of other sources appear to be industry press or derived from what breeders say about their animals, and so the stronger enforcement of source independence from NCORP might be warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's not recognized, and the breed is solely marketed by a commercial enterprise, I would think WP:NPRODUCT applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would being recognized make it no longer a commercial product? JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't; I just think that, practically speaking, you'd have a hard time overturning the consensus documented at WP:NSPECIES. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well breeds are definitely not different species and so are not covered by that essay. I would hope the editors who work in NSPECIES areas wouldn't recognize a national kennel club as having any academic sway! JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer, Joelle, not an animal handler. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don’t think the breeds themselves fall under NCORP, but the establishments that breed/sell them would. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)