Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 14) (bot |
→RFC on Notability of Publishers: Announcement |
||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
This is contradictory. We want article topics to satisfy the notability criteria, but we're not going to delete when they're not met. Shouldn't we update [[WP:NSCHOOL]], then? [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC) |
This is contradictory. We want article topics to satisfy the notability criteria, but we're not going to delete when they're not met. Shouldn't we update [[WP:NSCHOOL]], then? [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:No, it is [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] that has to be fixed. To my opinion that "rule", often used as a policy, is too often creatively used of plain misused to keep school articles. At one school AfD I heard a statement that, when I recall it correctly, said: "Keep, when you failed to find any sources, you just did not search good enough." It also lead to statements that school articles should be kept "because it is possible that there is a source out there but that has not yet been found". In fact, [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] makes a joke of [[WP:V]]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 20:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) <small>Extra interesting is that non-USA school always have to provide sources to proof notability.</small> |
:No, it is [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] that has to be fixed. To my opinion that "rule", often used as a policy, is too often creatively used of plain misused to keep school articles. At one school AfD I heard a statement that, when I recall it correctly, said: "Keep, when you failed to find any sources, you just did not search good enough." It also lead to statements that school articles should be kept "because it is possible that there is a source out there but that has not yet been found". In fact, [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]] makes a joke of [[WP:V]]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 20:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) <small>Extra interesting is that non-USA school always have to provide sources to proof notability.</small> |
||
==RFC on Notability of Publishers== |
|||
There is an RfC on the subject of whether [[Wikipedia:Notability (publishing)]] should become a guideline. Discussion is taking place at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?]]. Your input would be appreciated [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:39, 8 July 2015
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Attention"?
While we are here, let's discuss the use of the vague term "attention" in AUD. I propose we change that to a linked "significant coverage" to clarify what is meant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think the emerging consensus is that the whole section needs to be re-written or removed, with the nature of any changes being the natural next stage of this discussion. Though I agree with the principle that the word "attention" should be substituted for significant coverage. CT Cooper · talk 11:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not mentioned in AUD for two reasons:
- WP:CORPDEPTH (immediately above) already covers this concept in detail. (Check both the first sentence of the entire guideline and the first sentence of this ==section== for find the exact phrase "significant coverage".) There was no perceived need to duplicate the phrase yet again.
- There was some concern that people would interpret it as a requirement that the significant coverage be in the non-local sources that AUD encourages, but reality at AFD is that a combination of significant coverage in a small-town newspaper plus almost any coverage at all (beyond a trivial namecheck) in a non-local source is usually accepted.
- Given this, and the general lack of confusion on the ground, I oppose adding the phrase "significant coverage" for a third time in this guideline, and I specifically oppose shoe-horning it into a subsection that has nothing to do with the depth of coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Replacing one word with two is hardly introducing unnecessary repetition into the guideline. Consistent use of terminology is a good thing; using different words to mean the same thing is not. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm always in favor of necessary repetition; you can see evidence of that at WP:EL, which repeats "this guideline doesn't apply to reliable sources" half a dozen times now. I am, however, not in favor of unnecessary repetition. Where is your evidence that anyone reads this guideline and concludes that significant coverage is not required? I have not seen any significant confusion on this point for years (i.e., since CORPDEPTH was re-written). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with using the same word to indicate the same term consistently within a guideline, and I'm really not sure why such a big deal is being made of such a highly trivial change. Regardless, I'm sure people reach all kinds of conclusions given how poorly worded this section is as per my earlier observations. Even if the word is changed, it is akin to moving around deckchairs on the Titanic until more pressing issues are fixed. CT Cooper · talk 18:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm always in favor of necessary repetition; you can see evidence of that at WP:EL, which repeats "this guideline doesn't apply to reliable sources" half a dozen times now. I am, however, not in favor of unnecessary repetition. Where is your evidence that anyone reads this guideline and concludes that significant coverage is not required? I have not seen any significant confusion on this point for years (i.e., since CORPDEPTH was re-written). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Replacing one word with two is hardly introducing unnecessary repetition into the guideline. Consistent use of terminology is a good thing; using different words to mean the same thing is not. CT Cooper · talk 10:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with using a less vague term. Attention is what you give a small child. Significant coverage is a defined and globally understood term. Orderinchaos 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- The word attention is used four times in the main WP:Notability guideline, including twice in the nutshell. I believe that this is a "globally understood term". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- a minor coverage article published in a non-related topic publication can say more about that topics notability. The point which is being missed in this discussion is how to describe what aspects of a publications audience affect consideration for notability. Changing to significant coverage instead of attention is actually more restrictive and ignores the trivial "fish out of water" coverage publication which would carry weight on deciding notability. Gnangarra 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good example of the problem. The SIGCOV requirement is separate from the type-of-publication requirement. Combining them into one rule means that the guideline would not reflect actual practice, because "minor coverage" in some types of sources is given extra weight at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's actually why I like the phrase "significant coverage"... To my thinking it is actually a very flexible concept... for one topic, having an in depth article in a specialist source can be considered "significant coverage"... while for a different topic, having a whole bunch of short mentions in multiple non-specialist sources can be considered "significant coverage". In each case, the level of coverage is "significant"... but in different ways Blueboar (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good example of the problem. The SIGCOV requirement is separate from the type-of-publication requirement. Combining them into one rule means that the guideline would not reflect actual practice, because "minor coverage" in some types of sources is given extra weight at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Blueboar, this proposal is basically to ban that. They want to take this text:
Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.
and make it say
Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, significant coverage solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.
So if you think that "an in-depth article in a specialist source can be considered 'significant coverage'" and good evidence of notability, then you presumably don't want to define "significant coverage solely from...media of limited interest" as being evidence of non-notability. The way it's written now, you need significant coverage from any kind of source, and any kind of attention (e.g., minor coverage) from a source that is unlikely to be indiscriminate (i.e., not a small-town newspaper or especially esoteric specialist source). The proposed re-write would significantly tighten notability requirements, and also cause it to diverge from current practice at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a ban. It accords with what we need significant coverage, so as not to have original research claims of importance on things that are trivially attended to - the vague use of "attention" invites what we do not want. We could go with 'independent direct discussion of' but that is just more words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that you don't mean for it to be interpreted as a ban, but a ban on considering minor coverage is exactly how it will be interpreted by deletionists and spam-fighters at AFD. If we write "SIGCOV in national newspapers = notability, but SIGCOV in local newspapers = no notability"—which is, indeed, what we would be writing under this proposal—then people will start using that to say that all orgs must have SIGCOV in a major periodical. Right now, we say that any attention in a major periodical is enough, so long as you can get SIGCOV somewhere else.
- If you actually wanted to change the guideline to ignore both minor coverage in major papers completely, then we could do that, but we should be intentional about that change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Is either untrue or hopelessly vague because "evidence of attention" is meaningless or standardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you're right (that it's hopelessly vague or meaningless), then it should be easy to find diffs of people (e.g., in AFD discussions) that seem to be confused by this. Have you seen any such comments or disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Is either untrue or hopelessly vague because "evidence of attention" is meaningless or standardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a ban. It accords with what we need significant coverage, so as not to have original research claims of importance on things that are trivially attended to - the vague use of "attention" invites what we do not want. We could go with 'independent direct discussion of' but that is just more words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK... I think I see what the problem is... it all comes down to what we consider "significant" and what we do not. In terms of notability, I think you need to pass three basic tests to be significant... an examination of depth of coverage, width of coverage, and focus of coverage.
- Depth of coverage examines how much space any given source devotes to the topic. Obviously, if a source devotes multiple paragraphs (or more) to discussing an organization, that is more significant in terms of depth of coverage than a passing mention in a source that is really talking about something else.
- Width of coverage examines how many people are likely to have seen a source. A small circulation local newspaper is unlikely to have the width of coverage we are looking for. A wide circulation regional or national newspaper does.
- Focus of coverage examines who the intended audience of the source is. Is the source intended for experts?... the general public?... a narrow group of investors... the alumni of the school? Focus of coverage is the trickiest to define in terms of "significance"... because the audience has to be significant in relation to the topic. It also depends on the reputation the source has among its intended audience. Is a specialist source aimed at industry experts significant in terms of focus?... that really depends on the reputation of the source among those experts. Some specialist sources can be very significant... others not at all significant. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- yep "significant" is as vague and can mean many things, but primarily when discussing content significant coverage is consider to mean volume. The problem is we need to define the outliners in meaning as being weighted coverage for sources subject and content ie;
- Um, no. All of those are trivial. Especially "minor audience large coverage" is trivial, not worth consideration. If a local fanzine or neighborhood newspaper devotes an entire issue to one subject, that coverage isn't significant in a Wikipedia context. It's significant only in the context of the publication devoting proportionally high space to the subject. Those are two completely different meanings of "significant coverage" — an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience needn't concern itself with any coverage aimed at an insignificant audience, even if that coverage happens to use a lot of words.
- I recall a fellow Wikipedian has used a real-life example to illustrate the silliness of using local coverage to evaluate notability: When she was a child, her middle school science fair project was profiled in no less than three school/local newspapers, all verifiable and reliable. In the context of those publications, the coverage was big. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's still trivial.
- If one could quantify the terms, the size of the audience multiplied by the amount of coverage provides a gauge for significance. All three of those instances Gnangarra mentions above would be trivial then. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Those are two completely different meanings of "significant coverage" — an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience needn't concern itself with any coverage aimed at an insignificant audience, even if that coverage happens to use a lot of words." So what wouldn't be an "insignificant audience" for a "worldwide encyclopedia"? To re-quote my earlier comment, "Local interests are indeed insignificant when thinking on a global perspective, but so are regional and national interests – of the seven billion people on Earth, only a small minority will have any great interest in what's happening nationally within the United States, let alone what's going on regionally within Kansas. At a global level the involvement of a 100 people, a 1000 people, or a 100,000 people is quibbling with trivia – they are all tiny and insignificant – so given that WP:AUD treats regional sources like sacred cows, using that argument defend WP:AUD is self-defeating. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, but that doesn't mean everything in it has to be of interest to every person on Earth. If Wikipedia judged notability that way then we would have something like a four-digit figure number of articles, not over four-and-a-half million." In any case, I highly doubt a school newspaper could be considered reliable or independent, and even ignoring that, WP:NOT, and it's extension, WP:EVENT, deal with such things effectively. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Amatulić, the problem with interpreting "minor audience" as something like a fanzine (which tend to have large circulation, by the way, or else they go out of business) or a neighborhood newspaper is that you leave out a far more important type of "minor audience", namely the very tiny audiences of serious experts in very narrow fields. A publication whose circulation is just a thousand experts in a narrow technical field could be a very important indicator of notability.
- I've argued against this in the past, but I've come to see it from the other side. Note that I'm not going very far with this idea: I say only that it could be, in some instances, an important indicator of notability. In others, editors might well decide that it was proof that nobody except specialists cared about this subject at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Those are two completely different meanings of "significant coverage" — an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience needn't concern itself with any coverage aimed at an insignificant audience, even if that coverage happens to use a lot of words." So what wouldn't be an "insignificant audience" for a "worldwide encyclopedia"? To re-quote my earlier comment, "Local interests are indeed insignificant when thinking on a global perspective, but so are regional and national interests – of the seven billion people on Earth, only a small minority will have any great interest in what's happening nationally within the United States, let alone what's going on regionally within Kansas. At a global level the involvement of a 100 people, a 1000 people, or a 100,000 people is quibbling with trivia – they are all tiny and insignificant – so given that WP:AUD treats regional sources like sacred cows, using that argument defend WP:AUD is self-defeating. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, but that doesn't mean everything in it has to be of interest to every person on Earth. If Wikipedia judged notability that way then we would have something like a four-digit figure number of articles, not over four-and-a-half million." In any case, I highly doubt a school newspaper could be considered reliable or independent, and even ignoring that, WP:NOT, and it's extension, WP:EVENT, deal with such things effectively. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Alanscottwalker that attention is unclear. Significant coverage, while perhaps imperfect, is nonetheless clearly better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since nobody has posted here for a month, I think we can change this undefined, unclear word to something better (sig cov). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Remove "Routine restaurant reviews" from excluded coverage
In June 2011, a line excluded "routine restaurant reviews" was added to excluded coverage. This was apparently doen without any discussion here. The only discussion on the topic I found, a VPP proposal from August 2010 was voted down rather convincingly.
I suppose the intent of the line is to exclude indiscriminate reviews from a local publication that covers all area business. If that is the case, then the line is totally unnecessary as people regularly discount such coverage regardless of the subject. If that is not the intent, then the lien doesn't reflect consensus or make much sense. In practice, reviews are regularly used to establish notability of books, music, movies, computer software, video games, hardware, automobiles, electronics, wine, etc. There is nothing about restaurants that should make them any different. A small town newspaper might indiscriminately review all restaurants, but even if they do, that is only one source (and likely to be discounted by normal "local coverage only" arguments anyway) and insufficient to establish notability. It is certainly not true that big city newspapers do this, nor is it true that travel guides do so - they may list most restaurants, but a list entry never establishes notability. Multiple in-depth reviews by professional critics should establish notability, and in practice do. As such, the confusing line added without discussion should be removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think this came from a discussion of the New York Times metro section, which certainly does routinely review restaurants as though it were a local paper.
- Regardless, an addition to a highly-watched page that has stood over 3 years can be regarded as consensus.
- As for your substantive argument, the line is introduced by "such as:". It is an example to demonstrate how the 'trivial coverage' criterion is applied by editors in practice.
- Is there a particular AfD or other discussion where the 'routine restaurant reviews' line has been confusing or caused an unnecessary dispute?
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- There was no talk page talk in the archive around the time it was added - if it was the result of a discussion it wasn't here... It came up in a non-restaurant AfD in an attempt to say any product review of any kind doesn't confer notability. If it supposed to mean "local reviews" it should say "Local restaurant reviews" (but again, local coverage is already excluded elsewhere in the guideline). I don't know what a "routine" review is and I doubt anyone else does either. Is there any paper that reviews every restaurant every X months (or at open, etc,), because that is what routine would actually mean. If the publication is choosing which restaurants to review (and which to not review) then it isn't routine.
- Again, I'm not saying every restaurant review confers notability (just as every X review doesn't necessarily), I just fail to see how the line is an anyway helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read this yet, which removed the line briefly, and then ended up leaving it there? Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 9#I'm curious why routine restaurant reviews is included there with the rest.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen it, thanks. The irony here is it was restored because "there was no consensus to remove it", when there was not actually any consensus to add it in the first place (as near as I can tell) and that discussion, unlike this one, was not far removed from the addition. The participants in the linked discussion mostly agreed with what I am saying - the distinction of what and what not is routine is non-trivial and needs (at minimum) explanation. I would say the discussion was definitely "no consensus" for or against the line. I realize it has been in place for many years, but if it doesn't reflect actual AfD discussions, then it doesn't belong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- To my opinion the exclusion is sensible. Those reviews are seldom helpful for determining notability of a restaurant and will bring articles far too close to the point of advertising (just as signature dishes). A lot of less experienced editors will likely see a load of reviews as load of non-trivial media coverage, leading to too many articles coming in only to be send to AfD. The Banner talk 19:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think ThaddeusB has a point here. I never noticed the line before... but now that I think about it, I agree that the word "routine" is problematic. In the other examples within the section, word "routine" is used in the context of "short announcements" containing trivial information (announcements of opening and closing hours, for example). In that context one might assume that a "routine review" would be some sort of similar announcement (perhaps something along the lines of: "The special at Joe's Italian Bistro this week will be Chicken Parmigiano... it's delicious!") I don't think that is what was intended when the line was added. So... I think we need to explore what really was intended, and figure out how to phrase it better. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. To quote Diego Moya from the discussion linked above by Hroðulf: Reading WP:Routine makes it clear that it only applies to sources that are mostly based on raw data (sports news and results, logs of events), tied to commercial venues (film premiers and press conferences) or of industry-wide recognized low or trivial quality and verifiability (tabloids and gossip), i.e. ways to avoid Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE data dumps. Critical reviews on the other hand are supposed to include a critical assessment on the merits of the restaurant that is to be conducted in the most objective way. This is why reviews are regularly used through Wikipedia to create articles for books, films, music and artists; I find no reason why restaurant reviews should be different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your argument is an excellent one for excluding most local restaurant reviews. Those reviews are "of industry-wide recognized low or trivial quality". The few specialists in the area are not impressed by the restaurant reviews that Hometown Herald runs every Thursday. In some cases, the motivation is local boosterism. In others, it may be little more than a tax dodge, so the editor can go out to eat and call it a business expense.
- Also, WP:Routine includes obits and wedding announcements in the list, and routine restaurant reviews are often comparable in quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. To quote Diego Moya from the discussion linked above by Hroðulf: Reading WP:Routine makes it clear that it only applies to sources that are mostly based on raw data (sports news and results, logs of events), tied to commercial venues (film premiers and press conferences) or of industry-wide recognized low or trivial quality and verifiability (tabloids and gossip), i.e. ways to avoid Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE data dumps. Critical reviews on the other hand are supposed to include a critical assessment on the merits of the restaurant that is to be conducted in the most objective way. This is why reviews are regularly used through Wikipedia to create articles for books, films, music and artists; I find no reason why restaurant reviews should be different. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than removing, perhaps what we should do is rewrite. The section in question is supposed to concentrate on "depth of coverage" and how it does and does not establish notability... so let's discuss what "depth of coverage" means in the context of a restaurant.
- To get us started, Consider the following scenario: Say a major media outlet such as the NYT carries an article (in its food section) about "The top 10 pizza parlors in the City"... where it gives one or two short paragraphs to each of the restaurants it discusses. I would question the depth of coverage in such a scenario... the coverage (even for the #1 ranked pizza parlor) is far to skimpy ... Indeed, I would hesitate to use the word "review" for such an article. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that rewriting would be equally acceptable. Indeed the section in general tends to be misapplied. Most of the examples are clear enough, but, for example, the merger line is often applied to all stories about mergers even though it explicitly says "brief". Thankfully, since it does say "brief" one can simply point that the coverage in question is not brief and then (in theory) the delete !vote will be discounted by the closing admin.
- As to restaurants, I question whether it is really necessary to list it as an example. I looked at every restaurant AfD in the past three months (may have missed a few since I had to guess based on the AfD name in the food delsort) and didn't see one that hinged on the quality of the reviews one way or the other. But, if it is going to be mentioned a different (clearer) word than routine should be used. Since the section in question is about depth of coverage, as opposed to quality, perhaps "brief" would be the right word. I certainly agree with your point that one paragraph in a "places to eat" column does not confer notability. The key is probably whether or not the review offers critical analysis of the food or just lists what the restaurant serves, but I'm not sure how to capture that idea in a few words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- this tends to be a matter of judgement. The argument "only one review, so it still won't be notable" doesn't work in metropolitan areas, where there are multiple local papers covering the same territory. to take NYC. At one extreme, the various neighborhood editions of the advertising-supported but respectable The Brooklyn Paper will review any restaurant at all in the neighborhood in a one-paragraph write up. They will give a full-column write up with a picture to selected ones, which seem to be either popular, or interesting, or known to the editors,or presumably when convinced by their PR agent. The first ones are obviously indiscriminate--for the second, it could be argued either way. The New Yorker reviews one restaurant and one bar a week. They;re critical and knowledgable reviews, and I think it reasonable that there should at any one times be about 100 or 200 notable restaurants in NYC (Permanent notability isn the WP sense is a problem, because their average lifetime lifetime is rather short)--notable in the sense that someone outside the city might want to know about them. The NYT had sone various things at different times: when they published regional editions, I've argued that the LI reviews or the NJ reviews did not show notability. New York also does restaurant reviews, which are trendier and less substantial than the New Yorker, and where I doubt they would by themselves show notability. A restaurant reviews in all 3 sources would be notable.
- Perhaps the permanence aspect is relevant, considering this is an encyclopedia. Would the restaurant get enough notice in popular culture and general knowledge that anyone would care about it 10 or 20 years later--but that , in restaurant terms, equals famous, not notable. "Routine" is a word with many interpretations, and can be interpreted to suit whatever it is that you want to do, short of truly being a directory and including absolutely everything. I'd suggest leaving the text as it is; it's held up for a few years, and our decisions seem to make sense as a pattern. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Your last sentence is rather weird - if the sentence can mean whatever you want it to mean, how does that equate with it should stay? If it doesn't provide any meaningful guidance to someone inexperienced in the area, it doesn't make sense to have it there. It should either to clarified to reflect what actually happens or removed (in which case editors would remain free to evaluate various reviews as they saw fit in individual AfDs). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with keeping the exclusion. If we remove it, almost every restaurant in the world could make some claim of notability. I don't see that as helping the encyclopedia at all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It makes sense as an exclusion to me. The problem is that not only local newspapers but national ones have reviews. E.g. The Guardian, once of Manchester but now in London, routinely reviews mostly London restaurants. Without this exclusion it would in theory make every restaurant in London notable as it eventually got mentioned in The Guardian (or some other national newspaper with similar coverage). But The Guardian is only national in its news coverage, it's very local in its restaurant coverage.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep; and enforce: Every town that has a daily paper has reviews once or twice a week; alternative newsweeklies, another 40-60 or so; local slick magazines, one-three a month. So even a mid-sized city like Milwaukee could show you 100-200 longish reviews a month. Much as I love this town, there are simply not that many notable restaurants here. This language is vital, and by my reading "routine" includes, "our restaurant critic does a review this week because that's what we do on Thursdays, and this is the one he/she picked": rote reviews, even if several paragraphs long, without any substantial claim to notability on a global scale or evidence of same. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per ThaddeusB. The word "routine" does not seem to offer useful guidance. I don't think reviews should be excluded only because they are a regular feature ("that's what we do on Thursdays"). That says nothing about the proportion of all restaurants reviewed, the selection criteria, or quality of the reviews (including objectivity and, indeed, depth). In any event, "routine" doesn't belong in a section on depth of coverage because it has nothing to do with depth. We might want to replace "routine" with "brief", "simple", "mere mention" etc throughout CORPDEPTH. I looked at the link for the Guardian and couldn't see any words on that web page to the effect that they review all London restaurants. The argument that if all restaurants are reviewed then we can't accept the fact of review as evidence of notability might be erroneous. If (and it might be a big if) that was true, it might actually indicate that all restaurants are notable. We certainly don't require notability on a global scale. We normally accept national topics and often sub national ones. As for "an addition to a highly-watched page that has stood over 3 years can be regarded as consensus", I disagree. Just because a page is on watchlists doesn't mean that anyone is watching. James500 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Change. I think professional reviews, are valid sources that help establish a product (or company's) notability. What may be worth specifying is that what matters is whether the review is a RS or not. A newspaper review is ok, but a Yelp/Amazon/Google one, not. I'd therefore change it to "reviews published in non-RS". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Remove it - the claims that nearly every restaurant in the world would meet WP:N if we didn't exclude most reliable sources on the topic is patently silly. Things that get routine coverage get it because they're notable, but the routine coverage covers a smaller segment than what's notable - e.g., sports games routinely get covered, but the team is notable, so news contains routine updates. Weather is like this, as well. Regular coverage isn't routine - it's just a newspaper/magazine moving through the notable cases. Number, depth, and scope aren't different for restaurants than most other things. WilyD 14:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This exclusion makes sense and prevents articles only based on reviews. The Banner talk 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rewrite; I would definitely agree that a single review (or several reviews from a single source) is no proof of notability. However, a restaurant that has several reviews coming from several different sources is more likely to be notable. bd2412 T 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Reviews of restaurants tend to be the same as reviews of books, movies, games and the like; there are specialist critics and the results are commonly published in mainstream major media. There seems to be no logical or objective reason to exclude them when we continue use other types of review. The clause therefore violates WP:NPOV and should be stricken. Andrew D. (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-commercial organizations
This has been tagged since September but from this diff it seems to be principally the schools sub-section that is disputed. Unless someone can identify a specific part of the main section that needs discussion and resolution it looks as though the tag needs moving down to 'schools'. Just Chilling (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- The entire section has issues and I think it's highly questionable if that section has ever had a consensus behind it, but I won't object to seeing the tag removed and the focus kept on WP:AUD for now. I don't have an objection to the content of the schools sub-section in itself, though I'm not sure why schools need singling out and it's unhelpful to imply that all schools are non-commercial organisations, which they aren't. CT Cooper · talk 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good point... some schools are commercial while others are non-commercial, and so they should probably be given their own higher level header (even if we don't change the guidance). Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Some schools are also fraudulent. The people who spend the most time talking about "schools" really mean "government-run schools in wealthy countries, just like the ones I attended", not tiny private school or home-based schools. We should probably re-work that section. Do ballet "schools" count as "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education"? How about the tutoring business down the street? I think their name says "school" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- The word "school" means different things to different people and this guideline should keep that in mind. I think describing certain schools as "fraudulent" is unhelpful as it implies deliberate deception or even criminal activity. As it stands at the moment, this section is pointless as it is simply repeating what is true to all organizations and companies. CT Cooper · talk 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you about people having different ideas of what constitutes a school. Also, "fraudulent" is an appropriate word for some purported "schools". Some of those frauds are notable, too.
- IMO the main value in having a section on schools is that it has stopped people from saying that schools aren't included in this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The word "school" means different things to different people and this guideline should keep that in mind. I think describing certain schools as "fraudulent" is unhelpful as it implies deliberate deception or even criminal activity. As it stands at the moment, this section is pointless as it is simply repeating what is true to all organizations and companies. CT Cooper · talk 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Some schools are also fraudulent. The people who spend the most time talking about "schools" really mean "government-run schools in wealthy countries, just like the ones I attended", not tiny private school or home-based schools. We should probably re-work that section. Do ballet "schools" count as "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education"? How about the tutoring business down the street? I think their name says "school" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good point... some schools are commercial while others are non-commercial, and so they should probably be given their own higher level header (even if we don't change the guidance). Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, this section was discussed a while back, several times. I haven't been involved in the discussion of schools, and I'd have to think about it before I'd say much; but I have always been of the opinion that we need to relax criteria for certain type of organizations. For example, many Category:International scientific organizations fail this; my case study is the International Sociological Association which fails criteria 2 (it's discussed in passing by few sources, in detail by a self-published study), but every sociologist knows it is a very important organization in the field. Many key Category:Academic organizations fail it in the same way; American Sociological Association would fail it, as would most Category:Sociological organisations. At the same time, I think we can all agree that any national level or beyond professional, academic organization, seen by majority of experts in a given field as core to their profession, is notable. I'd therefore like to propose the following change: 1) add the new criteria: "The organization is recognized as having significant impact and influence on a given field by a significant number of experts." The wording could probably be improved. 2) Change the both to at least two. Otherwise we will keep existing in the situation where, as one of the past discussions concluded, that part of the policy is ignored, as most of us realize that enforcing it would result in deletion of numerous organizations that we feel are nonetheless notable. It's high time we codify this feeling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- If "The organization is recognized as having significant impact and influence on a given field by a significant number of experts" is provably met, then criterion #2 is already met. WP:NRVE prohibits us from saying "Well, I'm a widgetarian, and I personally know that the Institute for International Widgets truly has a significant impact on the field of widgets". We have to have evidence of that effect, and if there's evidence, then criterion #2 has been met. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: We seem, however, to harbor hundreds of articles for which criterion #1 is not met, and for which the widgetarian argument is the only defense. I think we should either try to delete them, or adjust the policy. I'll again point to ISA: do you think it should stay or not? As far as I can tell, it is clear it fails our policy as written: something has to give. PS. I was able to find a RS for ASA, so I remove that one from my query. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't personally have any information about whether ISA meets our guideline, but I don't necessarily agree that having just one out of ten thousand articles be present under the principle of WP:IAR and/or the WP:DEADLINE for deleting or (far more likely) merging articles about non-notable organizations is proof that we need to change the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not one, its hundreds. Here, I chose the APS abbreviation.
- Australian Psychological Society: 8 references to its own website, one to a governmental website that seems off-topic.
- Australasian Proteomics Society: 1 self-ref, 1 ref to another org's website that does not seem to mention it at all, 3 refs to academic journals which I cannot access right now, one seems dedicated to it however, but is it an in-depth article or a news piece - I am not sure.
- Association for Psychological Science: likely passes, it's history seems to have been a subject to two scholarly articles, at least
- American Phytopathological Society: unreferenced
- American Physiological Society: 1 press release, 2 passing mention, 1 broken link, almost entirely unreferened
- American Physical Society: 33 refs, but almost all are self-refs to own website, plus 1 broken link, 2 mention in passing, 1 open letter to republished in a low visibility media source, 1 link to a directory, one link to another org's website.
- Granted, I haven't looked for better sources. But as written, we have 1 clear pass, 1 possible pass, and 4 fail. I did a quick search for what seems to be the most prominent among fails, American Physical Society, and I am not seeing anything but passing mentions, despite its likely status as a major academic NGO. Now, would you care to argue those are notable or not? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- 4.8 million articles divided by "hundreds" of these articles = one out of ten thousand articles.
- Your caveat (that you haven't looked for better sources) is significant. The citations in the article are not what matters. What matters is whether any independent reliable sources have discussed it. I took the completely unreferenced one and found two books that discuss its activity and history with a single search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not one, its hundreds. Here, I chose the APS abbreviation.
- I don't personally have any information about whether ISA meets our guideline, but I don't necessarily agree that having just one out of ten thousand articles be present under the principle of WP:IAR and/or the WP:DEADLINE for deleting or (far more likely) merging articles about non-notable organizations is proof that we need to change the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: We seem, however, to harbor hundreds of articles for which criterion #1 is not met, and for which the widgetarian argument is the only defense. I think we should either try to delete them, or adjust the policy. I'll again point to ISA: do you think it should stay or not? As far as I can tell, it is clear it fails our policy as written: something has to give. PS. I was able to find a RS for ASA, so I remove that one from my query. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I also looked at many organizations from the categories related to research institutes and most of them (I easily found at least 30) are not referenced in a way that prooves notability. I think most of them are notable from an academic pov and I do not wish to have them deleted. The problem is that some get deleted and others don't and I am wondering how we could make things more consistent. Should I simply "request the expansion" or "propose the deletion" of those who do not meet the notability criteria? I hesitate to do so and I'd really like an alternative solution. MaudeG3 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @MaudeG3: Tagging them with {{notability}} is the first step, but that category is backlogged for 5+ years. Ditto for any other templates like expansion requested - the odds are long anyone will act on them for years to come (not that it is a reason not to use them). As I said, I think we should list some for deletion, and after a case study of 10-20 of such organizations we will see if the consensus is to keep or delete them. If the former, then we will have a clear evidence that there is consensus to adjust this guideline. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Common invalid "keep" arguments for commercial organizations
Thinking back over the last two years or so, where I have participated in AfD of dozens of articles of companies of dubious notability, I have identified several arguments that I believe have no basis in this policy, nor GNG. Their prevalence, I think, may justify inclusion them in the policy in the form of "this doesn't matter/arguments to avoid" (or alternatively, adding them to our criteria). I will note that a number of AfDs have been closed as keep as the closing admins seem to consider such arguments valid enough to make them weight for no consensus/keep. The said arguments are:
- this company is one of the largest in its field in a given country/region
- this company employs foo-zens of people
- this company makes foo-illions of profit
- this company is included in the professional/trade ranking of foo-zandred most important companies in its field in the world (ex. The Legal 500)
- this company is a member of a respected professional association (ex. Ius Laboris)
It would be good to hear others thoughts on those arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that they're all invalid arguments.
- However, inclusion on a reputable list of "most important companies in its field" item, while unimportant itself, might be a handy proxy for whether proper sources are likely to exist. My thinking is this: a company is not likely to turn up on such a list unless the list-makers heard of it somehow, and the most likely way for them to hear of it (and therefore for the company to be on a reputable list) is for the company to have received some attention in reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, those are good proxies at least, and accepting/keeping "top" ones allows Wikipedia development to proceed reasonably. On that point more fully, in the case of law firms, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#about notability of law firms.
and please contribute/continue there, rather than here. This new, duplicative discussion here should be closed, IMHO.--doncram 03:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, those are good proxies at least, and accepting/keeping "top" ones allows Wikipedia development to proceed reasonably. On that point more fully, in the case of law firms, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#about notability of law firms.
- Another argument I consider invalid is "This company has been profiled in multiple trade publications (that serve a narrow niche audience)." ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Simple evidence of membership in a trade association with open membership to any company engaged in that business is in no way an indication of notability. The other listed "foo" indicators of notability depend entirely on the depth of coverage and the reliability of the source. An article in a reliable business publication devoting significant coverage to a company which mentions its size compared to its competitors, the number of its employees and its revenues and profits, in the context of detailed discussion of its history and unique characteristics, is a source useful for establishing notability. As for the general blanket objection to coverage in trade publications being used to establish notability, editorial judgment is required. If an article about an aerospace company is based on many articles over decades referenced to Aviation Week and Space Technology, I will not dissent. But if an article about a barber shop is referenced to two press releases in two different barber shop trade magazines, I will dissent. I oppose blanket opposition to citing articles in high quality trade publications. They are not all rags, reprinting press releases. Intelligent editorial judgment is always required here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Another argument I consider invalid is "This company has been profiled in multiple trade publications (that serve a narrow niche audience)." ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't forget that AfD discussions are the way we develop and evolve consensus.
- The first four are great proxies, until we are able to get access to print and foreign language sources. They help to counter systemic bias, and have been useful for at least ten years, perhaps longer. So they are valid, but not decisive, keep arguments in the mix of a debate. The fifth amounts to notability by association and, I think, can be reasonably ignored.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that I might buy the "countering systemic bias" argument, except that it's almost never used for orgs in developing countries. It's usually trotted out for articles on mid-sized US and UK organizations. "But they employ 600 sales people" doesn't mean that any newspaper outside their own hometown thought it was interesting enough to write about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think those kind of arguments are inherently invalid (provided the assertions are verifiable). NRVE explicitly allows us to keep articles where the nature of the topic is such that adequate coverage is likely to exist, perhaps offline. I think it is reasonable to assume that size, in terms of the number of people, and amount of money, involved in the business, correlates with the level of coverage. In any event, I am prepared to accept that a sufficiently large, wealthy or otherwise powerful organisation is inherently notable, though I am not sure where the line should be drawn. James500 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- So I was involved in re-writing NRVE a few years back to bring out that idea. However, I think you have over-interpreted it. "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" is not the same thing as always being able to keep it based on an assertion that unspecified sources probably exist, perhaps offline. Once you reach an actual challenge, it is almost always necessary to produce actual sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- You would think. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advokatfirman Vinge. 4 keeps, all a variation of arguments I listed in the op. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but you are the editor who nominated that article for deletion, using your personal standards, Piotrus. You don't really think that this self-referential AfD is going to convince anyone, do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean, my personal standards? Point me to neutral, Wikipedia standards this article is passing, notability-wise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I point you to consensus, which is the operating principle at AfD. If you truly believe that your argument wins the day in that debate, then rely on the closing administrator to agree with you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that I have not commented at that AfD debate, and don't intend to do so. I have no context to judge the notability of European law firms. But if several non SPA editors commenting in good faith express the opinion that a top 100 European law firm is notable, why on earth would you spend time fighting against that consensus? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because if I cannot win, after I clearly made the case that arguments used there are not backed by this guideline, this means we have to seriously consider changing it. As has been said here, consensus can overturn and change policy. Based on my AfD experiences in the past year or two, I see arguments, similar to the ones cited here, often winning the day. This is a sign that we have to reconsider our stance, and officially recognize some, if not all of them, as valid notability criteria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that I have not commented at that AfD debate, and don't intend to do so. I have no context to judge the notability of European law firms. But if several non SPA editors commenting in good faith express the opinion that a top 100 European law firm is notable, why on earth would you spend time fighting against that consensus? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I point you to consensus, which is the operating principle at AfD. If you truly believe that your argument wins the day in that debate, then rely on the closing administrator to agree with you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean, my personal standards? Point me to neutral, Wikipedia standards this article is passing, notability-wise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but you are the editor who nominated that article for deletion, using your personal standards, Piotrus. You don't really think that this self-referential AfD is going to convince anyone, do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- You would think. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advokatfirman Vinge. 4 keeps, all a variation of arguments I listed in the op. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- So I was involved in re-writing NRVE a few years back to bring out that idea. However, I think you have over-interpreted it. "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" is not the same thing as always being able to keep it based on an assertion that unspecified sources probably exist, perhaps offline. Once you reach an actual challenge, it is almost always necessary to produce actual sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think there has to be a point where the number of people employed by a company makes it notable. I suspect that a company with several thousand employees would be well-sourced anyway, but if it manages not to be, I would still think that a reliably sourced assertion that it has several thousand employees would be sufficient. bd2412 T 18:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- That would suggest notability certainly, but I don't see any reason why that would establish notability, especially if there's no good independent sourcing for the claim showing why that particular number is significant. That also creates a potential "what are they counting as employees" question, and more importantly, if it isn't sourced enough to meet other notability criteria, where are we getting those numbers from? The company itself? I don't like the idea of a "number of employees creates notability" because that has zero to do with how noted the company is outside of the company itself, which is what notability is. Having 1000 would suggest notability and that sources could probably be found, but it doesn't create notability unless third-party source note it as significant in some way. - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Once notability has been established by the usual means of reliable independent secondary sources, primary sources can be used in limited ways, e.g., to support statements of additional routine facts. If a notable company reports they have 10K employees on their website or in their annual report, I think we'd accept that. Msnicki (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that using a primary source to show the number of employees is fine, but not as a means of establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't the numbers themselves matter? Let's say I can provide a reliable source showing that X company has 50,000 or 100,000 or half a million employees, or that X company is by far the largest employer in a significant industry, at some point doesn't the sheer size of the company demonstrate notability? bd2412 T 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, unless reliable sources exist to demonstrate that such a thing is significant. Such a thing would suggest notability, but having employees is not significant for a company. WP:ORGSIG covers this pretty well already, "Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products" and I have to agree with that. - Aoidh (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't the numbers themselves matter? Let's say I can provide a reliable source showing that X company has 50,000 or 100,000 or half a million employees, or that X company is by far the largest employer in a significant industry, at some point doesn't the sheer size of the company demonstrate notability? bd2412 T 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that using a primary source to show the number of employees is fine, but not as a means of establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Once notability has been established by the usual means of reliable independent secondary sources, primary sources can be used in limited ways, e.g., to support statements of additional routine facts. If a notable company reports they have 10K employees on their website or in their annual report, I think we'd accept that. Msnicki (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Notability of American college sports clubs vs. varsity teams
There is a pending AfD regarding the LSU Tigers rugby club team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana State University rugby, that has been pending for several weeks, and has had little participation from knowledgeable organizations editors who are familiar with the NORG/GNG standard for the notability of teams, clubs and other organizations. It might be helpful if some of our experienced organization editors and regular participants from this talk page would have a look at this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's move "depth of coverage" (first para) and "audience" sections to WP:GNG
Please see my proposal at WT:GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
NSCHOOL vs. SCHOOLOUTCOMES
This guide, under WP:NSCHOOL, says that
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both.
On the other hand, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that
Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
This is contradictory. We want article topics to satisfy the notability criteria, but we're not going to delete when they're not met. Shouldn't we update WP:NSCHOOL, then? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that has to be fixed. To my opinion that "rule", often used as a policy, is too often creatively used of plain misused to keep school articles. At one school AfD I heard a statement that, when I recall it correctly, said: "Keep, when you failed to find any sources, you just did not search good enough." It also lead to statements that school articles should be kept "because it is possible that there is a source out there but that has not yet been found". In fact, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes a joke of WP:V. The Banner talk 20:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Extra interesting is that non-USA school always have to provide sources to proof notability.
RFC on Notability of Publishers
There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline. Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. Your input would be appreciated JbhTalk 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)