Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Government agencies and NGOs

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

This tends to apply to all governments, but particularly the US. Money is allocated by the legislature/Congress, then sent to various agencies to actually administer and spend. These tend to be faceless agencies but do much, if not most of the spending. Some of them are "non-profit vendors." Their leaders often do quite well for themselves! :) They are in the local news but not national because they are often state-limited (borders of a single state). One might spend millions of dollars or more. I realize that Wikipedia tends to crumble around the edges with time, but right now, it is easier to define a near-notable politician than a more notable organization. No reason by itself to degenerate organization boundaries, I realize. But this policy seems to be instrumental, probably not on purpose, in hiding spending. We have state governments at the highest level only, then municipal governments and almost nothing in between. But it is just those "in-between" agencies that are doing most of the spending, not the supposedly "notable" ones that generate the hot air and public meetings. Somehow, this doesn't seem quite right. As a result, the bulk of the state government goes un-articled, along with the bulk of the US federal government. Student7 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm...so what is your question, exactly? If those agencies exist, can be verified, but are not notable themselves, then it would be appropriate to mention them in their parent agencies. Can you give some more specific example of an agency you feel should be notable because of how much money it spends (really not a notability criteria at all - anyone can spend money), but that has no actual significant coverage to warrant inclusion? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a prison without a recent riot? The manufacture and distribution of license plates? (Okay, they can be a line item in another dept. Gobs of money though). Department of Fisheries. Children and Families Commission unless there's a well-publicized screwup on foster home placement. (Then it sounds WP:COATRACK!) Housing and Community Affairs. Libraries Department. There's a boring one for you! Almost never in the "news" at the state level! Agency for Health Care Administration. Lottery Department! Why are we skipping those? :)

Actually much money is distributed so subtly nowdays, that it is difficult for the average person to detect a state funded org from one that is entirely federally funded, and in fact, the money (trace the money) may deliberately go from federal to state to NGO. The state is supposed to keep track, put out bids where necessary, etc. An administration mess, but someone has to do it. In larger states, the NGO to distribute info on home-heating/cooling, and help impoverished people with this sort of thing can be HUGE, in aggregate. May be distributed over several NGOS. All very boring, of course, unless something goes wrong. I know, you would be willing to accept this as a line item of expenditure somewhere. But the point is, the actual method of actually spending this, is sometimes informative. It isn't always distributed in an efficient manner. People need information to be able to figure that out for themselves. Also, the people running these things pay themselves amply. May not be efficient either since their work may be mostly slam dunk.

I have come to realize that huge amounts of money are spent keeping a rural area where I visit in summers "alive", for whatever reason (political? social?). The average house was built in 1915. It is run-down. The federal government pumps money in there and the state helps. Else the people leave and come into the cities which can't sustain a sudden rush on facilities. I suspect this is true of poor areas in cities as well, though don't know where those people would go if the tap were turned off. Possibly to societal discontent? The money dumped in poor areas is huge. People would be shocked, I think. I consider myself well-informed and had no idea about this before until I tried to document it (and was nearly stopped by someone looking for notability. I had sustanance from my fellow editors, fortunately, and the article survived. But not all have been looked at that closely!

Right now, we can document line items, but tracking where the money is actually spent is an eye-opener, believe me. Try it in your area.

Think about it. What would you pay to keep my poor rural dweller from glutting your transportation resource (or whatever) in your city? $20,000/annually per rural dweller? (Not directly out of your pocket, of course!). I don't know what the figure is, but it includes gobs of overhead for administration. Again, it is a matter of visibility. Most people just don't pay any attention to it usually. That is the problem.

The material is there to document the agencies. But yes, the documentation may be "insider." We aren't doing it because they aren't "in the news." Dog bites man routine stuff. And no, I am not volunteering to do this should the floodgates open. Fall asleep typing! But there should be a financial threshold I would think. Student7 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX, so please stick to discussing what actually relates to Wikipedia rather than going into a rant. None of the items you mention seem to be noteworthy nor notable at all. So people make license plates, and? What makes it notable? Wikipedia is also not here to be the guard and keeper of the line item budgets of any company, organization, etc. Plenty of watch dog groups for that. Nor is Wikipedia for the publication of original research, which also you seem to be proposing. I'm not seeing any real suggestion on changes to this guideline other than, if I am reading you correctly, to simply remove all notability guidelines so people can trash their favorite local service target? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just money. Just power. Just quiet importance. Student7 (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Importance != Notability, however. Obviously your city's water services are important, but that doesn't make them notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You've picked a good example. In most cities, and particularly large ones, water/sewage systems are not only vital, but expensive. The departments have massive budgets. In Florida, control of water resources is crucial and meting these out to neighboring towns (at a premium) is important to the city's income. They usually get only local coverage, but can be controversial there. I think most should be documented, if not part of the "government" in place articles, but probably with their own article in larger cities. Unsurprisingly, NYC has extensive articles on theirs. But most places don't. IMO they should. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vital, again, does not make them notable. This isn't the place for articles for that. NYC's is unique do to its unusual notability, however for most cities there. Also, please note Wikipedia is not here to be a witch hunt, as noted above, nor for just blasting various city services. For the most part they are noteworthy or unusual. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Anma is right. If an agency is so unimportant that nobody has written about it, then Wikipedia doesn't want to write about it, either. (And, unless you're willing to rely solely on the self-published and presumably self-serving publications of the agency itself for 100% of the contents, then we cannot write an article about something that nobody else has ever written about.)

As for "somebody else should write it": This is a WP:VOLUNTEER place. If it's not important enough to write it yourself, then it's not important enough for anyone else to write it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I find the problem to be here is lack of visibility. It's sort of like having a "forked" article. The parent article was important but sometimes articles are forked and appear isolated and (with their particular collection of references) self-referenced. This is hypothetical, but I can't believe it hasn't happened. That is, there was already lack of notability for the "Division of License Plates" under "Department of Transportation", but it wasn't noticed until the fork was made. Then it became a bit glaring for someone stumbling on it for the first time.

I think that all "children" governmental organizations "over" a certain amount of line item money should be documented. Some (not all) of the editors who have answered don't seem to understand that I understand the current guidelines well enough. I am trying to get them changed. Until they are, "3/4" or maybe more of the government goes un-articled. These restrictions are why most local government is undocumented, a high portion of the state government, except for some cabinet officials and a few others are mostly un-articled, and huge huge amounts of the federal government, mainly because they not only have agencies that distribute/spend money, but because they give to states, who do the same.

And none of these are completely unreported of course, even beyond themselves. It is simply impossible to have no paper/web trail in this day and age. Maybe some local organizations right on the border of expenditure have nearly nothing.

But many of them manage to keep off the 11 o'clock news. People want "excitement" at that hour, not facts. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's not one word in this guideline that prevents you from writing about the kinds of agencies that you're describing. In fact, your proposed standard is more restrictive than the existing one. As far as this guideline is concerned, if the sources exist, even if the agency's annual budget is less than two cents, the agency is notable according to this guideline. There is no minimum budget requirement: only the sources count.

Again, all this time you're spending whinging about an imaginary restriction could have been used to solve the problem. The only reason that verifiable information about these agencies isn't already in Wikipedia is because you haven't chosen to write about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does this leave the NGOs? In rural states, the people in those groups probably outnumber the people in state government! Student7 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And where does it say anyplace that government entities are notable? Student7 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Government and non-governmental organizations are treated exactly the same by this guideline. The definition of an organization (as far as this guideline is concerned) is defined in the third paragraph: "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." It doesn't matter if the group-formed-for-a-purpose is public or private, for-profit or non-profit, big or small, old or new, or anything else. All that matters is that a reliable source outside the group-formed-for-a-purpose has published enough information about the group-formed-for-a-purpose to make it possible to write an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OPUS Archives and Research Center

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is the 1st source for OPUS Archives and Research Center article enough cred to take down the notices? MythMe23 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

For the second tag (about the need for independent sources), yes. The last page has some substantial detail about the library. This source, by itself, is probably not enough to deal with the notability concern. Since the library is in Santa Barbara County, I think that a story in the Santa Barbara News-Press would be considered local coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant notability

Latest comment: 14 years ago69 comments15 people in discussion

Recently I came across a discussion at AN/I that related to the notability of a restaurant - Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. The article is exceedingly well written but based purely on restaurant reviews and a couple of trivial mentions in the New York Times Regional section. If restaurant reviews count towards notability there is certainly "significant local coverage" and much less "significant regional coverage" of the restaurant. None of this coverage goes outside the realm of the dining sections of newspapers and the review of restaurants. I wonder how that jives with the current policy and/or if the policy should be re-evaluated in terms of restaurants in general. I would personally think that this one, and a majority of the others that one can find through Category:Restaurants in the United States by state are not notable in a way that we would want here at an encyclopedia. My personal opinion is that we are also just doing PR for them by having these articles, since they are not of any value except in an advertising sense. Here are other discussions that relate to the same topic:

Any thoughts on how restaurants should be considered in terms of "significant coverage" and notability?Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think such an article would fail WP:CORP if the only coverage is locally based, and there is no significant coverage in actual, third-party sources (as local media coverage would, in this case, not really be third-party). The reviews, themselves, are not the issue, only that they are purely local (after all, book and film notability is, in part, determined by significant number of reviews). If it were reviewed by a national publication, won national awards, etc, then it would be notable. Most restaurants, however, do not meet this and likely should not have articles (most notable exceptions are usually the famous chef's restaurants or the top tier ones). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A James Beard Award nominee for best new restaurant is very likely notable. An dthe abundance of sources and reliable independent media coverage reinforce that view. Clearly the article needs to be cleaned up. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the sources are local and regional and our article on the James Beard Award claims that it is for restaurant reviews and not for restaurants. Can you expand on how nominating a restaurant review applies to the notability of the restaurant? Thanks. I think our article on the James Beard Award is not up to date, since the organization appears to award many awards in different categories. However, how does being on a list of 30 nominees for an award from 2007 establish notability? If the award itself is notable I can understand putting the winner there. Are we creating 30 new entries on restaurants every year to cover the nominees of this award? What about all similar awards? Should we have entries on every contestant on American Idol from 2007? Surely they are all much more notable than the nominees for the James Beard Award for "Best New Restaurant"?Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While the New York Times covered the restaurant, and the paper of course is a well recognized source internationally, the restaurant in question was covered as a LOCAL interest, not national interest. It takes less time to get to this restaurant from central Manhattan (location of the NY Times headquarters) than it takes to get to many parts of NY city. The fact that the NY Times reviewed the restaurant does not in itself make the restaurant nationally recognized. The reviews of this restaurant are entirely local. (Side note to Griswaldo: As this particular discussion is outside of the incident yesterday I decided to put in my two cents.)Njsustain (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the NYT's mentions are all in the "Regional" section of the paper.Griswaldo (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the search page for the James Beard Awards. I was unable to find a listing for either "Daryl" or "David Drake". I'm not questioning the assertion that it was nominated, but surely it it were, that would be the place to find evidence of it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If sources are independent and not mere press releases, we should not care at all if they are "local" or not. RS are RS, and if we have enough sources for WP:GNG, such articles shouldn't be deleted. The "non local" part of WP:CORP has never reached really consensus -see above discussion- and it is at odds with the more general GNG guideline, of which CORP is supposed to be an extension, not an alternative. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, we need to care about the local nature of sources for notability (only) because of the indiscriminate nature of some local coverage. Basically every restaurant in my area is mentioned in my local newspaper at its opening, its closing, and every couple of years in between. It does not follow from this coverage that either the taco stand that just closed, or the Asian place that is opening in that space, deserve Wikipedia articles. Local coverage is usually a reliable source for facts about a restaurant or other organization, but it is a poor indicator of the need for a stand-alone Wikipedia article.

The "real policy" is that if an article is kept at AFD, it's probably notable. Leaving aside what "should" happen, the fact is that articles that name almost two dozen separate sources (including the largest newspapers in two different states), are basically never deleted, no matter what this page says about what "should" happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically every restaurant in my area is mentioned in my local newspaper at its opening, its closing, and every couple of years in between. It does not follow from this coverage that either the taco stand that just closed, or the Asian place that is opening in that space, deserve Wikipedia articles. - It follows, instead: it is multiple third-party coverage in reliable sources. That is what is required to deserve a WP article. Of course I wouldn't disagree with merging them in a single article (say, Restaurants in X) for rationalization purposes, but to avoid subjects covered in multiple RS only because they are of "local" interest seems biased to me. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia I don't follow this argument at all. You are arguing that applying measurable criteria to determine the overall significance of something equates to bias. All "notability" policies are expressly involved with such significance. Something of only local interest is not of interest to the broad audience of an encyclopedia. It is obvious why we have this language in the policy.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we avoid to cover specialized academic subjects because they could not be "of interest to the broad audience of an encyclopedia"? Of course not. For the same reason, we shouldn't bias our coverage by refusing to use local RS. It is not "obvious", given that this guideline (not policy!) is the only one I'm aware that specifically singles out local sources as unsuitable - WP:GNG does nothing of the sort, and it is our main guideline for notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, clearly "significance" is not simply measured in brute quantity. Academic subjects usually do not suffer from the same "local vs. global" issue that is concerning us here. Academic communities are usually transnational or global (yes that's a step beyond national, and two steps beyond regional), even if they are small. The subject matters of academic pursuits may be of interest to any lay reader who is digging further into a subject matter that is, once again, of universal interest. Do you care to give an example of an academic subject we cover that you would argue it is on par with? It might be better to discuss this with a concrete example in mind. I await it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I've actually got a total of three articles about the taco stand closing, between two different newspapers. That means that I have "multiple third-party coverage in reliable sources": two completely separate publications ("multiple"), nobody at the newspapers works for the taco stand ("third-party coverage"), and regular newspapers ("reliable sources"). Shall I start an article on the taco stand's closure now? Or are you prepared to add a little editorial judgment to your proposed system of mindlessly counting the sources without evaluating the nature of the sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo: You are moving goalposts back and forth. First you talked about "interest to the broad audience". I replied that WP covers a lot of subjects who are not of interest to a "broad audience". You're now replying back that the subjects do not suffer from the "local vs global issue", but this is circular: the point is: why locally-covered stuff is not apt to the encyclopedia? I live in a relatively small city (~130.000 inhabitants). I suspect a lot of stuff covered by local sources has a much more broad audience (in terms of being known/impact on a given number of people) than exotic subjects like sedenions or Toki Pona. Singling out "local" as a proxy per "lacking notability" is therefore biased.

@WhatamIdoing: An article on the closure would be probably violating WP:NOT#NEWS, but if the taco stand had sustained coverage before, I would see nothing wrong in writing an article about it. I don't understand what do you mean by "mindlessly counting the sources": of course we have to judge if you have separate publications and not mere copies of an agency report, if the publications are truly independent etc., but once you have that, all our standard requisites are met and I don't see why should I add more (POV) judgement. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not moving goal posts at all. Local affairs are not possibly of interest to a wide audience by definition. Specialized subjects could be of interest to almost anyone, and most certainly are of interest to select individuals on a global scale. It is true that at any given moment there might be as many or more people interested in a restaurant as those interested in a specialized subject but that's not the point. Raw numbers are not the point. The type of information is exactly the point. You know that, and I believe you are obfuscating on purpose and its not particularly charming. Given our past I don't see this conversation going anywhere productive. Have a good one.Griswaldo (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that people never move from their homes and never care of what's going on outside their own place? Local subjects can be of interest to almost anyone, if they have an interest in that place. It is that simple -if I want to know about "notable restaurants in place X", I need these articles. Just like if I want to know about "notable subjects in algebric topology". Your assumption of bad faith on my part is not only wrong (I am not obfuscating anything and I am discussing in all sincerity), and the fact we had disagreement on other subjects in the past is irrelevant here. I don't see why can't we have a productive conversation on this subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made an additional comment conceding some of the points made, but I don't see it here. I started an article on the chef, who does appear to be quite notable, and I think the restaurant can be covered in a section there. Of course he is no longer head chef, but the restaurant certainly bears his mark and he seems to be far more notable than the place itself (and I generally think it better to cover chefs than their restaurants individually). Freakshownerd (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a good solution for how to retain the pertinent information on this establishment elsewhere, but what about the existence of this article now and others like it? This one was even placed in the DYK queue by the writer apparently, before someone prudently thought it was best to hold off on that while this all settles.Griswaldo (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I definitely think that local coverage is not enough. There are some newspapers (quite a lot I imagine) that praise most of the restaurants (or all) that they write about - sure, not the NYT, but a lot of more local papers who can't afford to offend people. We need to recognise this and that local coverage is rarely going to be enough to prove notability. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  - So if they instead gave bad reviews, it would be OK? I don't get it. --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    - I'm sure you get it Cyclopia.Griswaldo (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      - No I don't, and please stop assuming bad faith on me, Griswaldo, it makes it impossible to have a productive discussion. Now let Dougweller answer, thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

James Beard Award (inaccurate claim)

The restaurant was not a "nominee" for this award. The sources linked to in the article appear to be incorrect or misleading. The pdf voting form listing 30 establishments may have been a preliminary voting form of some kind, but the Award has one winner and FOUR other "nominees" and this restaurant was not one of them. Please see the following direct link to the listing on the award organizations website - 2008 Best New Restaurant. Neither source used for the claim was WP:RS and the promo piece from the local magazine was clearly incorrect.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there might have been some duplicate locations for discussion of the exact same issue at multiple different pages, including the article's talk page. I thank you, Griswaldo, for the additional research you have done regarding this particular issue. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Someone nominated the article in question to AfD. See - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant.Griswaldo (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This has turned out almost exactly like the arguments that transpired some months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards, the subsequent deletion review, and the essay it spawned. The arguments in those discussions also apply to this one about restaurants, and underscore a need to clarify the notability guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Locality

I suggest a review of early versions of these very guidelines. The Mavalli Tiffin Rooms (AfD discussion) were held up as an example partly because they were a restaurant that the systematic bias of Wikipedia would cause most editors not to have heard of, or to consider to be local to one country on the other side of the world. The idea that we exclude things because they are "local" is very much combatted and countered by "Jimbo's No" (which it appears Jimbo might have forgotten in the overall rush of the current palaver to mis-use notability as a proxy for objection to editors' motivations for writing).

The overwhelming majority of the subjects in the encyclopaedia are "local" in one sense or another. Many mathematical topics are only discussed in works read by the world's community of mathematicians, and thus are "local" to that group of people. Many species of beetle are only discussed in works "local" to entomologists. And many asteroids are only "local" to a small community of astronomers. Being a subject that only interests a small fraction of the entire population of the world, by dint of geography, profession, language, culture, or otherwise, is not an exclusion criterion for an encyclopaedia, because it is the norm for most topics. Wikipedia isn't about majority interest. If it were, it would be smaller than most one-volume paperback encyclopaedias. The world's a big place, and what's known to and of interest to the majority of the population of the planet is a small subset of what's known. Notability is not about target population sizes, but about extent of reliably and independently obtained and permanently documented and recorded human knowledge.

Note, furthermore, that independence of published works is included there, and, conversely, has always been a part of the PNC, from its very first formal expression. It is by insisting strongly upon independence that we avoid advertising, ensure that we can write neutrally even on subjects that are close to ourselves, and avoid writing about subjects the knowledge of which has yet to escape their inventors/creators/owners/hawkers and be acknowledged by the world at large. That was in the early versions of these guidelines, and explained in some detail there, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G, "local" and "minority" are not equivalent here. A local community is a very specific form of minority population defined by geographic boundaries. No published general reference work includes information of only local interest or worth. They do, however, include information that may be of interest mostly to other types minority communities, like academic communities. I think this comparison fails on its face. I'm not saying there isn't some merit in comparing different types of minority audiences, but we need to look at the differences as well as the similarities if we are to do so. I also want to note that it isn't clear at all that restaurant reviews are independent of the restaurants. The relationship here is much different from that between a normal piece of news and the subject of that news - especially in local and regional publications. This relationship also needs to be considered on its own and restaurant reviews should not simply be conflated with any old news coverage, as many seem to be doing.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo:

A local community is a very specific form of minority population defined by geographic boundaries.: Exactly, no more, no less.
No published general reference work includes information of only local interest or worth. They do, however, include information that may be of interest mostly to other types minority communities, like academic communities. - Here things become subtle. First of all, we don't care about what other "published general reference work" do: WP is uniquely WP, our aim is not to mimick 1:1 other similar works. Second, and most important, being referenced only in local sources does not imply at all that only people living there will care about the subject. People move -and even if they don't move, they still can have interest in subjects that would otherwise be outside their reach. That is what encyclopedias are for: acting as a compendium of knowledge so that you don't have to go to the math department library to learn about sedenions; or that you don't have to actually go to New York to know about notable New York-referenced things. This is an asset of WP, something that we should be proud of, not something to lose.
I also want to note that it isn't clear at all that restaurant reviews are independent of the restaurants. - This is very perplexing. A review should be independent almost by definition (unless it's not a case of blatant masked advertising). Why isn't it clear at all? --Cyclopia ^talk 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you have "blatant masked advertising": If it's blatant, it's no longer masked. But to address your confusion, restaurant reviews are sometimes initiated by the restaurant owner, who provides free food, the best server, the best table, extra staff in the back that night, etc., in the hopes of getting good publicity. The same thing happens with hotels and other related businesses. It is considered unethical among newspaper journalists, but (as of about ten years ago) was reasonably normal among travel-guide writers. Trying to figure out who was really a travel writer, and who was a scam artist or a wannabe, was one of the headaches for small innkeepers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the "blatant masked" confusion -I mean, when you have an advertisement piece which is not officially presented as such, but it is obviously one to any decently skilled reader. Now, you have a good point indeed, which I wasn't aware of (I have an acquaintance who is a restaurant reviewer for a national Italian newspaper, and AFAIK he's pretty independent in giving good or bad reviews). But I feel it is more of a problem of source bias when having to keep NPOV about the restaurant, than a notability point. The review is still secondary source coverage. That the review is biased towards good because the restaurants know how to attract the reviewer's attention is another problem. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia ... enjoy discussing this with someone else.

@Uncle G ... if you wish to respond I'll be happy to engage you in conversation but I will no longer discuss this with Cyclopia for the sake of everyone's sanity.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am really perplexed by your attitude with me. Is refusing to talk with people whom you disagree a regular habit? I understand we crossed in two different venues in a short time, but that's sheer chance (I have this page in my watchlist since long time ago). Would you mind explain what is wrong? I would really appreciate to have a collaborative exchange with you. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This response from Frank at the AfD pretty much sums up my take on how you deal with my arguments as well. There is no point in continuing them.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have the feeling I misrepresent your opinion, please accept my apologies. This is definitely not what I want. It is probably a case of simple misunderstanding. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ORG isn't inventing this idea out of whole cloth, you know. NOT (WP:PROMOTION) has said, "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable" since at least 2005. Since we care about the sources ("notability" is about how much "notice" an org gets), rather than the sales volume or some such, requiring some level of notice by reliable sources outside of the immediate location is a reasonable way to figure out whether something is a "local company". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context. The full quote of WP:PROMOTION says Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. - This means "they are typically unacceptable because they are typically unverifiable". Nobody talks about the tiny cycle repair shop down my street, so it fails WP:V, and even more so WP:GNG. But here we are talking of cases in which not only there is abundant WP:V coverage, but also coverage that would be OK for WP:GNG under any interpretation of it. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We should treat restaurants like we treat sport. Routine local coverage, like reviews in nearby newspapers (or in the regional section of a larger newspaper) shouldn't be considered as evidence for notability. These are run-of-the-mill reports, not related to any newsworthy event or long-term (or long-range) notability. Fram (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fram: local reviews aren't enough, especially as these are often promotionally tinged. The type of coverage available to us is of a completely different standard with restaurants like Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, which receive serious (not just promotional) coverage that goes way beyond local media. [1] It is somehow poignant that we don't have an article on Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, but have an article on Daryl Wine Bar & Restaurant—for reasons that are related to Scientology, rather than a desire to improve our coverage of notable restaurants. --JN 466 13:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- We do have an article on Claridge's where it is given a paragraph. (Mind you, Claridge's deserves an article, but we would better start deleting tons of hotel articles as well. I have the impression that people think luxury = notability, which gives us articles like Sofitel St. James, Millennium Hotel Mayfair, and Four Seasons London). Fram (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  - Serious cleanup is needed in a large variety of categories related WP:CORP. I also think we need to strengthen the guideline with some specific points for certain types of businesses, like restaurants and hotels. No one seems to care about these entries unless there is a chance to do some marketing through them. Its a disaster.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant Coverage is not Enough

It seems appropriate to repeat here a point I made on the Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant AfD page. It seems unnecessary to go down the fraught path of distinguishing national from local coverage and substantial reviews from puff pieces - a horrible task, especially as local reviews are often available worldwide on the interweb. I am happy to concede that just about every restaurant which opens gets "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"; forget newspapers, there are countless A-Z restaurant guides issued by reliable publishers. But the notability guidelines specifically state that significant coverage creates a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It is not the slam dunk many editors seem to think. A consensus against notability is legitimate, even when there is significant coverage, for example if inclusion infringes WP:Not - e.g. it's not a directory of restaurants. I think the challenge is to distinguish restaurants deserving encyclopedic coverage from other restaurants, taking it for granted that just about any restaurant will meet the significant coverage test.

Sketching some criteria, I'd suggest length of operation, citations for making original and significant contributions to the development of restaurants, presence for some time of a notable chef, substantial discussion in academic sources (restaurant histories, and so on). This is how we achieve the sane objective of including restaurants like La Pyramide and Le Pavillon while excluding any wine bar or taco shop which happens to have been reviewed a couple of times.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would add to that list something about size, when it comes to restaurant chains. A small local chain might not be notable, but I'd say something with 100 locations across the nation is. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if the chain has significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (not including local reviews of local branches of the chain). There are some regional restaurant chains with more than 100 locations that aren't particular notable. While many people eat there, not to many reliable sources actually talk about them all that much. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we want to address size. One hundred locations might be trivial in the US, and a national institution in a small country. What matters is how much relative notice they're getting: AfD usually keeps things that seem to get more notice than average, even if it's a single store, and deletes things that get less notice than average, even if it seems "big". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some language in WP:ORG points in the right direction: "When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Appropriately amended, that looks like a criterion for including some restaurants without thereby including all restaurants. Rough suggestion:

When evaluating the notability of a restaurant, wine bar, bar or similar amenity, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, cuisine, gastronomy, restaurant/bar history, or eating/drinking customs.

KD Tries Again (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That is a good start. Do we need to draft a subsection for Restaurants? I think we should.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a little WP:CREEPy? We could make such a statement for every single type of business, but do we really think that it's necessary? I'd like to think that editors can look at the general item of "history" and come up with "history of restaurants" on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a response to a body of opinion at the above-referenced AfD that any restaurant, however poor and unremarkable, qualifies for a stand-alone article by virtue of being mentioned in a couple of newspapers or restaurant guides.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Oppose. The proposed wording is fraught with personal bias pitfalls. It is as vague as it could be, and it is an open door for bias, WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:ILIKEIT) and whatever else. To stay objective, we just have to stick to sources coverage, not personal judgement of "effects". If multiple RS judged to write about the venue, we should acknowledge that, not put our personal judgement or ad-hoc criteria on that. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment The present distinction according to local, regional and national sources does make some sort of sense, not just for restaurants, but also for hotels, artisan workshops, etc. Imagine a small workshop that makes pottery. They may well be covered in a local paper, which is bought by people who live in the area and may want to go and visit that workshop to buy some of their product. I would argue that such a workshop is not a fit subject for an encyclopedia entry. However, if the workshop is written about in a national paper, say because they contribute to a national exhibition, it is different. At this point, they have become notable: they are talked about not just because you might want to go there and buy some of their product, but because they are known. It is similar with Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, or a shop like Harrods: people are interested in reading about them even if it is unlikely they will ever get a chance to go there. The problem at the Daryl's Wine Bar AfD, it seems to me, is that people are gaming "local" and "regional", just because the New York Times office publishing the New Jersey section is not in New Jersey, but on the other side of the state line. The point is, no paper in Kansas or California would write about Daryl's Wine Bar (or Pete's Sweet Shop) in New Jersey, because its readers would not be interested in reading about an obscure wine bar/sweet shop in New Jersey. The same applies to our readers. However, papers in Kansas or California may write about Harrods, or about Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, because these are famous institutions that are of general interest. They might also want to read about a sweet maker whose product has genuinely become famous. Again, these are the ones we should be writing about. So to me the notability criterion is whether the coverage is intended for a local audience, or for a general audience. Coverage written for a local audience is not enough. Substantial coverage written for a general audience is what makes a business notable, as opposed to a place where you might want to go to buy or eat something next Tuesday. --JN 466 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you say about restaurant guides? A restaurant guide for, say, New Orleans - not a locally published guide, but one issued by a major publisher and distributed nationally - that presumably counts as national coverage? In the United States at least, such guides sweep up a wide range of restaurants, including many which are far from famous or even important. One answer might be that even two or three mentions in such guides would scarcely provide enough information to write much more than a stub.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It's a headache. I would say mention in a travel guide is not evidence of notability, just evidence of usefulness. --JN 466 15:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a tough line to draw because many restaurant guides are published by newspapers and based on their reviews. I am not sure weekly newspaper reviews and annual guides have much of a different function: different readers, perhaps.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It might be more useful to say that orgs (not just restaurants, but all orgs) need to get an "above-average" amount of attention compared to similar organizations. That is, a restaurant that gets a lot of media attention relative to other restaurants is probably notable; a restaurant that gets less than average attention is probably not notable (even if less-than-average for a restaurant would be more than average for a type of business that is rarely discussed by sources).

One thing that it's worth remembering is that editors always have to use their judgment in this process. This is not a simple tick-the-box kind of decision: You weigh the number of sources, the diversity of sources (all from the same hometown newspaper? only one author?), the quality of the sources, the depth of the sources, the time period during which the org receives attention, and any other factors that you deem relevant, to produce a single "Yes" or "No". No single factor is ever going to be accepted as an absolute proof of notability. Consequently, the most we can really do on this page is to identify the kinds of factors that editors normally consider, and the levels that they normally deem appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, but there's a significant philosophical difference which runs across so many WP discussions I've been involved in. Many editors, if not a majority, insist that quantifying coverage in RS is all we can do; anything more involves subjective judgment, bias and IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know how this split in the community will work itself out, but personally I agree with your suggestions.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Another AfD?

Since we're still discussing the restaurant nobility issue I thought I'd point out that another AfD has been ongoing for as long as the Daryl one, and has received 1/100th of the attention. Would it be considered canvassing to link to the AfD? Given the no-consensus of the Daryl AfD it might be good to get more eyes on this one, by all parties involved in this discussion, who clearly do not all agree with one another. If it isn't canvassing I'll gladly link it here, otherwise I wont.Griswaldo (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the AfD just closed the above question is irrelevant. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Spring Cafe. I really fail to understand how an establishment like this is notable even by the existing guideline. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple coverage by RS, so WP:GNG seems to pass, at a glance. However I agree that the fact that all coverage comes, apparently, from a single news source can be perplexing. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From the GNG: "Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Consequently, if the coverage all comes from a single source, then it does not, at a glance, pass the GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't noted in the discussion that the sole regional source is classed as a PR brochure by the organization which produced it (Okay, Griswaldo tried hard, but the Alabama site actually calls it a "PR resource"). This is a good candidate for a deletion review, as I have said at the closing Admin's [page].KD Tries Again (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I doubt that you'll get very far with DRV, where the consensus at the individual AFD, not the standard 'rules', is the primary concern. (They're mostly concerned about whether the closer correctly interpreted the comments, not about whether the subject is actually notable.) Sometimes it's more productive to put that energy into the next discussion. It's like anti-spam work: You can usually do more good by removing 10 spammy links than by arguing over one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The closing Admin should be swayed by comments referencing the applicable policy, and there is no sign it happened here and no indication in his/her closing comments that policy considerations had been taken into account.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You're talking about what should happen, and I'm trying to tell you what does happen. Where DRV is concerned, IMO the theory and the practice do not always line up perfectly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Yesterday the Big Spring Cafe entry was on the main page via DYK. Just ridiculous.Griswaldo (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump

Discussion and proposal here, for info .. N-HH talk/edits 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Automatic notability

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

According to some, all high schools and radio stations are notable. I was bold and added it to this page. I will not fight to keep it though. If you oppose, let us know why.

Should we say that radio stations and high schools are not automatically notable? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Corretion, radio stations are not automatically notable. See WP:BCAST Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is per several discussions with admins and precedence set with past AfDs. Just because someone wants to delete something to stop vandalism, which in my opinion is just silly (what next, deleting Barack Obama to stop vandalism there?) is no reason to break precedence and consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the vandalism report put the WGGH article in the spotlight where we found that it is either notable for 1 of the 3 reasons or fails notability. If it were Radio Sweden International or WBBM, then it would definitely be notable. But WGGH is non-notable on 2 counts and could be (or maybe isn't) notable on the 3rd count.

It's as if there was a vandalism report on Johnny Montgomery of Fayetteville, NC, USA. Someone then discovered that he was not notable and deleted. Nobody is talking about deleting the American president except Mr. Homer. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet! If we follow your logic, that is what could happen. But you are disregarding the precedence set, the consensus found and the notability setup. It isn't notable to you, so it is trash. Sorry, not the way it works. Find consensus the other way, or drop it. Because at this point, we are just going 'round and 'round on something, I have backing on and you do not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also taken this to WP:WPRS, the WikiProject setup just for radio stations (we have one for TV stations too) and I recommend you seek input from there as well before going off on a small tangent. You might be enlightened by the users there who put time and effort into these articles, have done their research, worked with admins from the beginning, gotten the consensus and precedence and worked hard on them. Go there first. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no automatic notability for anything on Wikipedia. Zero independent sources means zero article, full stop. (Without an independent source, then how do you know that the high school whose website you're looking at isn't just a hoax?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is talking about high schools (and those are notable under other rules), we are talking about radio stations and that discussion has moved to WP:WPRS, so this should be marked resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there are no other rules under which anything is automatically notable. See the second sentence of WP:N: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". This applies to absolutely every article, regardless of topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing, the notability guidelines of specific projects cannot override the general guidelines. A subject must pass the general rules first before project-specific rules apply. Thus a project can only set more restrictive conditions for notability that the general guideline does, never looser. Roger (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Automatic" is a misleading term. But there are quite a few types of things that are presumed notable, e.g. mountain ranges, cities, species of plants and animals, public companies traded on national exchanges, leaders of nations and large political subdivisions, winners of certain prizes and awards, and so on. If there are no sources, indeed there is no article, which usually means one of three things: (1) the presumption is wrong in this particular case, (2) there is a flaw in making this sort of presumption, or most likely (3) it's not true: the thing doesn't exist, is a hoax, hasn't happened yet, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)