Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

"No inherited notability"

I think the guideline is a little too narrowly focussed in this regard, as it seems largely to be written from the perspective of corporations, which are legal entities that issue shares owned by individuals or other legal entities. However, it is not adequate in terms of organizations that are partnerships. While I accept that notability is not always "transferrable", separate consideration ought to be given when an organization is a partnership. Without the individual partners, there is no partnership or legal entity. In many ways, the organization and its partners are intertwined, such that it is difficult to separate the firm from its partners. I suggest that consideration should be given to circumstances when a group of independently notable individuals enter into a partnership and the organization is a manifestation of those partners. It may be a somewhat imperfect analogy, but an organization that is a partnership of notable individuals might be akin to a band made up of notable musicians who established their notability prior to the formation of the group. I am not suggesting that a partnership is automatically notable because its partners are notable; I am merely suggesting that it is a criterion that should be considered in conjunction with other evidence of notability. Agent 86 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No I think it is fine as it is. Mtking ^(edits) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree... the policy is fine as it is. Notable people can form non-notable partnerships, just as notable partnerships can be formed by non-notable people. For a partnership to be notable, it needs to be notable as an entity in its own right ... and not rely on "inherited" notability from its partners. Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think you've both missed the point. I'm not saying that a partnership is notable merely because of it has notable partners. What I am saying is that because a partnership, at law, is not an entity independent of its partners, one factor to consider within the larger circumstances is the nature of its constituent partners. While it may verge on a tautology to say so, since CORP is a guideline, consideration of such things would offer further guidance. (And, FWIW, "I think it's fine" provides no real rationale beyond mere contradiction.) Agent 86 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what you mean by that? It's ambiguous and can be taken several ways. I'd be interested in reading more about what you are thinking. Thanks. Agent 86 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • A company, even if owned by two people, may produce more value then you can attribute solely to those two individuals. Does that help? I mean this is a common concept so I would have thought that the meaning here is clear. Bottom line is that if a company is notable, it does not mean that by default so are it's owners. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Clearly the notability (or not) of a firm has no direct correlation to the notability (or not) of it's members, owners or directors. Mtking ^(edits) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Agent 86 seems to be attempting this from the other direction: If Nancy Notable and Joe Filmstar and Paul Political form a partnership, then he believes the partnership should deserve a separate, stand-alone article entirely about the partnership because the owners are notable, not because the partnership itself has attracted notice from reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks, Vegaswikian. I agree with that take on the sentiment; however, I am also considering it in the broader context of the nature of a partnership, the existence of which is dependent upon and cannot be independent from its partners. Unlike a corporation, where anyone can buy shares, becoming a member of a partnership is more intrinsically related to the nature and qualities of the person who is a potential partner. Therefore, simply asserting that the notability of a partnership (which does not have "directors", unlike a corporation) has no direct correlation to the notability of its members is absurd. If a group of notable film directors, animators, and record executives formed a partnership, the corporality of which is wholly dependent upon the individuals forming the partnership, then that is an indicia that the partnership might have some notability. However, the notability of the partnership still would require other signs of notability. Thus, notability is not automatically conferred (which is not what I have been saying), but it is but a single factor to consider, giving reason to believe that there may be the potential for notability. Cheers. Agent 86 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not exactly. If you want to write an article about the partnership, then you need to find sources about the partnership, not about the partners. If no such sources exist (e.g., all your sources about the Grand Research Alliance is a brief mention in news articles actually about one of the famous partners), then you shouldn't write an article at [[Grand Research Alliance]]. You should instead create a ==Section== in the [[Famous Partner]] article that discusses their involvement in the partnership. "Doesn't (currently) qualify for its own, separate, stand-alone article" is not the same thing as "Must never be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia".
  You are sort of right about the involvement of notable individuals giving an indication that it might be notable. However, that "might" only protects you from speedy deletion under WP:A7. It does not give you any help at all under WP:N or CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I think you and I are more in agreement than you think, WhatamIdoing. I think I have steadfastly maintained that if the only indicia of notability is the composition of the partnership, that alone is not enough. What I am saying is that it is something to consider when weighing the other sources relating to notability under CORP. I guess the flip side of what I'm saying is that you cannot ignore the fact that an partnership is comprised of notable individuals, who are intrinsically and inherently part of the entity, unlike a corporation where it's perfectly reasonable to ignore who the shareholders might be. Agent 86 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

    Perhaps the major point behind notability isn't clear. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements (a relatively new section)? We're not requiring multiple independent sources just for the fun of it. We're requiring this because you cannot write a decent encyclopedia article under any other circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm also not talking about not having reliable sources, either, but I understand your point. Agent 86 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools"

Are Blue Ribbon schools by virtue of receiving the award inherently notable? Raymie (t • c) 03:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• The common outcome of AFDs has been that most elementary schools and middle schools have been redirected to the school district or city or parent organization: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." Is "Blue Ribbon" a sufficient "clear claim to notability?" The award shows "high levels of performance or significant improvements" and is considered "the highest honor an American school can achieve" per its article. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) was redirected following an AFD, at Deletion Review for 4 December 2011, the school's article was reinstated when someone showed that it was once a "Blue Ribbon School" in 1992-93. Having once been a Blue Ribbon school would override GNG. 5200 schools, about 4% of US schools eligible, have been "Blue Ribbon "schools. Is having once achieved this measure sufficient to provide inherent notability? I expect that a school getting this award does typically generate some articles in local newspapers. Edison (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, those points were raised many times and failed to draw consensus. I think the problem is the underlying desire to get articles for all schools. I don't believe that it is been shown that Blue Ribbon School status is really defining since the criteria overly subjective to start with. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • My understanding of WP:ORG as it applies to primary level schools is that it requires substantial, non-trivial coverage in regional or national/international media. From that perspective, local media is going to make me question how local. To be honest, I imagine that every primary school in my area gets some regional media coverage - as a result of an inspection if nothing else. To be equally as honest I don't see this in very many cases at all making them in any way notable. I have the same feelings about the Blue Ribbon award. By itself my gut feeling is that it doesn't mean a school is notable in any way. The short term media coverage that results doesn't either. More than that - and more than the PR stories that every local school tries to get into the media - and there might be an argument. Caversham Primary School, for example, currently has an article and survived AfD on the basis of the national media coverage of the High Court judicial review regarding entry to the school. Personally I still feel that this is marginal in terms of notability - the event may be just about notable, but more from the pov of Reading Borough Council. But at least it's some form of notability - unlike a Blue Ribbon award. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• It is absurd that a bureaucratic award bestowed in mass numbers in the United States only is somehow regarded as sufficient to make an end run around the well-established consensus at AFD that all but truly exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools are redirected to the school district or town, while all secondary schools are automatically kept on a per se basis. Carrite (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Coupla things worth noting:

First: I think there's a useful analogy between the notion of "highest honor a school can receive" and the legal meaning of the phrases such "best" and "highest quality" as they are used in advertising, to wit: "best" does not mean (as advertisers hope consumers will assume) "better than any other," but rather means, "No other has been shown to be better." So where, as is almost always the case, there's no agreed-upon way of saying any given product is conclusively better than any other, they can all call themselves "best." Absent any evidence to the contrary, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the same thing is going on with this "highest honor": there being no agreed-upon ranking of whether the "Blue Ribbon Award" is more, or less, prestigious than the "Cream 'o the Crop Award," or the "Top Teaching Award," or the "Enviable Elementary School Award", anyone can declare any one of the "best."

Second: All sources in the article for the statement of "highest award" are local articles about local schools winning the award -- hardly an unbiased source.

Third: It's not an accident that all these local articles use exactly the same text -- they're working from school press releases, which in turn are no doubt plagiarized (shall we say) from model releases from the Department of Education. But of course, the entity bestowing the award is also nothing like an unbiased source for the award's significance.

The Blue Ribbon is based entirely, it appears, on self-reported information from the school. Let's see an independent, reliable source for the idea that the "Blue Ribbon Award" means much of anything at all, much less a marker of notability.

EEng (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how getting the Blue Ribbon award (mentioned above), given out over 5200 times, would give an article inherent notability. That would simply give us ~4500 stubs of otherwise non-notable schools. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! I'm Raymie, the creator of the DRV. I mainly created the DRV because the result really hinged on whether this proof was found. I'm currently following precedent. I've restored one article that had been redirected (Rhodes Junior High School), but that can be changed back, of course. I also made some category/ref fixes for Arizona schools, because this was poorly documented. I will note that a move could open the floodgates for hundreds of new articles. Raymie (t • c) 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite the age-ist bias that some editors show (schools attract a lot of attention from students in high school, who naturally feel that their schools are terribly important and that schools for young children are never important), the rules are actually the same for all schools, regardless of subject, the age of the students, or the type of organization operating it: You need to have one source that isn't from the immediate local area. You need to have enough independent sources that you can write a fair, unbiased article. That's it. It happens that the real rules support more articles for schools for younger children (especially middle schools) and fewer articles for high schools (especially small, charter, and/or private schools) than OUTCOMES (which is all about the typical school, not the actual examples in front of you) predicts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am a high schooler, but actually, I have edited my own school article on WP (including declaring my conflict of interest) and cleaned it up. I write some very dry, unbiased articles. Want to read about Walden Grove High School in Sahuarita, Arizona, a new high school that opened in August? Or perhaps Phoenix Indian School (listed on the NRHP), an Arizona institution that was around for a century? Or Desert Edge High School, Arizona's first LEED-certified high school? Those are all in there thanks to me, as are dry stubs like Fredonia High School (Arizona). I just wrote articles on high schools so that AZ had some decent coverage. Along the way, I fixed so many errors that it wasn't funny. Raymie (t • c) 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And I appreciate your work. My point is that if you're following precedent, you're following a precedent set largely by high school students who (unlike you) don't care whether the articles are any good or supported by a single independent source. That's where a lot of this nonsense about "automatic" notability for high schools (and "automatic non-notability" for elementary and middle schools) comes from. You must have decent sources. The age of the students or the awards received by the school are irrelevant: all that ultimately matters is the existence of independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe that being a Blue Ribbon School should constitute inherit notability. It is not such a well-publicized award as to convey such notability. I mean, until I looked up the list of award winners a few minutes ago, I was unaware that my high school had won the award, even though I've been receiving the alumni publication for years, both before and after the award was given. The fact that hundreds of schools win the award each year also tends to detract from the claim that any school that wins it is inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I dont think blue ribbon is enough to establish notability. its too common an award, and It seems like a vanity award, to generate publicity or attention.(its received criticism for allowing self review and self nomination, and for favoring wealthy schools). maybe schools with multiple blue ribbons could be considered notable. as an aside, I disagree that high schools need to abide by the same criteria as primary schools. while the schools may not be that notable, their seniors often are, as students in high school are a: sometimes adults with notable accomplishments and b: sometimes regional sports stars. and, of course, people really, really like to know who attended various high schools. I dont think we have the same level of interest in who attended elementary school. perhaps because most children are not developing the signs of future fame at that level, thus is much more trivial than, say high school actors who become hollywood stars.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • But remember that notability is not inherited. So a sports star can be notable and merit an article, but that does not mean the school becomes notable. Now if the school has a program that produces numerous notable players, that would make the school notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Assuming we could cite it reliably then I'd agree. Blue Ribbon doesn't tend to do anything of the sort though, does it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I have questioned Blue Ribbon as indicative of notability in the past since it is not really that rare. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• The original basis for using the blue ribbon designation is a reasonable one, a basis that we use throughout Wikipedia for notability of anything, of being the highest national award. I think it can be justified on the basis of uniformity and consistency with other topics. for example, we use the highest national level throughout athletics, and it gives us as the sole justification many time the 5200 purportedly unjustifiable school articles. Obviously if for a particular topic the highest national level were an award given to 50% of the relevant individuals or bodies, it might not make much sense. But 5% does make sense. Remember, we're talking about notable , not famous. 5% aren't famous--maybe only a few dozen are. But that 5% might be notable is perfectly reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  Of course, if you don't actually have any independent, reliable sources, then you still can't write an NPOV-compliant article, no matter how many blue ribbons the school has. That's just reality: we need independent sources to write articles. They are an absolutely necessary condition for writing a policy-compliant article. Having a blue ribbon or not is basically irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It generall is possible to get 3rd party RSs, which is enough top meet WP:V, an indispensably essential minimum criterion. The usual question is whether the provide substantial coverage, which is relevant for the GNG, if we want to use the GNG in this case. It's our choice. The consensus at WP is still to use the GNG when possible; I take the opposite position, of using it only when there's no other rational criterion. The advantage of adopting my opinion would be to eliminate the otherwise necessary hundreds of thousands of AfDs on schools and many other things to evaluate the nuances of sources in each case DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Is there a way to make this thread into an RFC to gain input from more Wikipedians? Edison (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

    Yes. The directions are at WP:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

    • RfC'd. Raymie (t • c) 03:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• A redirect is not a delete. It's not a question of notability, it's a question of sufficient significant information. In general for many US schools we are better served by a section in a school district article, and a redirect. If the section gets too long it can be spun out. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
  
• The primary notability guidelines for organizations specifically states that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The ORG guidelines also state that "No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." If the organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable. The guidelines do not include a statement that Blue Ribbon schools are exempt from the guidelines. The common outcomes do not present any information about Blue Ribbon schools being exempt. Rather, the outcomes refer editors back to the ORG guidelines. Retention of school articles based merely on their status as a recipient of a Blue Ribbon Award is not supported in either the general or topical notability guidelines. While the common outcome is to retain Blue Ribbon schools, in my opinion, this outcome violates officially established guidelines. I would like to see more users participate in this discussion. My hope is that this RFC would serve to establish official community consensus to ensure consistency and compliance across the board with the ORG guidelines. Either follow the guidelines or change them. This is a first step. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• I do not believe that the "Blue Ribbon School" designation is enough to warrant keeping an otherwise non-notable school. I am glad to see that consensus appears to agree. In the future I will reject that argument at AfD discussion. (However, despite objections from a minority of editors like whatamidoing, I DO agree with the consensus that all diploma-granting high schools and degree-awarding colleges are notable and should be kept if verified. My experience is that if you look for significant coverage about a high school, you ALWAYS find it.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Much like carrite, I feel we should require articles to satisfy the GNG or some similar notability benchmark. I'm not keen to see articles being given a free pass on notability simply because they got some highly subject-specific award (in one country out of many) which is orthogonal to our existing notability requirements. bobrayner (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• I too would disagree with having a free pass for schools in one country. Especially after reading "The program centers around a self-assessment conducted by the school followed by an establishment and implementation of an improvement plan" in the article here about the programme. That suggests to me that they are getting an award for what the headteacher ought to be doing anyway. Peridon (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue with this statement

Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.

I wish to bring up an issue with this statement. At WT:Food we have been having a discussion about Michelin stars, as this statement runs afoul of guidelines we use in determining notability of restaurants. Because of the inherent subjectivity of reviews, regardless of the source's status, age, public standing and/or fame, we do not allow them to be used to establish notability. In a series of recent AfD discussions, the quoted statement has been used to claim that Micheline stars automatically confer notability on a restaurant; this is problematic for several reasons:

1. There is a lack of defined, objective metrics that Michelin uses in determining the status of restaurants
2. There are allegations of an institutional, cultural bias to non-French cuisine by former employees of the company and food critics in other countries
3. There are claims that the reviewers for the company are poorly treated, paid and trained which can cause less than objective reviews of restaurants

All of these problems are documented in the Michelin guide article. Additionally there have been claims by contributors that Michelin stars are somehow an award similar to the Academy Awards or the Nobel Prize as opposed to what they are - a review with an arbitrary ratings metric no different to 1-10 scales, Two-thumbs up etc. Comparing the Michelin guide to the Fortune 500 as is done in this statement is also a problem because the F500 is a list of companies that meet defined set of criteria that can be easily duplicated. Because of these issues, Michelin under normal circumstances would not be considered a reliable source, but because of it's inclusion here it is now being claimed by several editors that Michelin stars automatically confers notability. While some people hold the Micheline guide as a reference to restaurants, we need to look at what is, a travel guide that features the subjective opinions of its editors and that it is no different than those guides published by Fodor's or the American Automobile Association.

All in all I would like to see the statement edited to remove the Michelin guide references to alleviate this problem. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the same thing can be argued with the Nobel Peace Prize and the Academy awards. There arbitrary criteria also factor in. Oscars are generally won by drama films which deal with a big societal issue. And the selection of Nobel Peace Prize is a political decision by the Norwegian Parliament, there have been several controversial awards over the years. I doubt there is any award which operates on 100% objective criteria. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all true, but the problem with this guideline is that it elevates a guidebook to notabilty arbiter. That's akin, for movies, to saying that being listed in the Allmovie Guide makes a movie notable. Now, most movies in that guide may well be notable. But we can't rely upon that guide. We have our own criteria. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that under the notability rules for people, an entry in Marquis Who's Who is not sufficient to establish notability. That's at least as exclusive as the Michelin Guide. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No need for a change here. Most of the critical comments come from ex-employees with a grudge and restaurants who lost, or did not get, a star. Besides that, how on earth are you going to make "defined, objective metrics" voor things like service, presentation, atmosphere and taste? Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremy for the reasons that he stated, and as a matter of fact I was going to raise the issue here myself but he beat me to it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem with a food review, they cannot be subjective. What one reviewer finds unbelievably tasty another may find merely pedestrian which is mentioned in the article on Michelin. Opinions differ between people and a lack of defined metrics makes the review process unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)

And that is just why they use more then one inspector to judge a restaurant. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See also here Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece, not an article from a reliable source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can meet the definition of a WP:Reliable source. You might want to go read WP:RSOPINION if you're having trouble with the idea that we can reliably support subjective statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is for establishing reliability of articles, not bolstering your opinion in a discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not establish the "reliability of articles". We establish the notability of subjects (the purpose of this page), and the reliability of individual statements in articles (which RSOPINION says can be done for subjective statements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not trying to write articles about good restaurants. We're trying to write articles about restaurants that get a lot of attention from WP:Independent sources, even if they're truly lousy. Can you honestly say that you've ever run across a restaurant that was awarded three stars in the Michelin Guide, and didn't get enough newspaper and magazine articles to write an article about the restaurant?

There's nothing in this rule of thumb that says only three-star restaurants are notable, or that the third star itself is what makes the restaurant qualify for an article on Wikipedia. We're just saying that—as with US Presidents and atomic elements—nobody's ever found one yet for which dozens of independent sources couldn't be found by anyone who bothered to look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the footnote was added on March 23[1] after a brief discussion[2] that did not focus on the Michelin guide in any detail. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that just because it is reviewed by Michelin, does mean it is noteworthy. The star ratings may get the place noticed, but by themselves the ratings do not establish noteworthiness. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. That's why I'd suggest that this offhand language, placed rather casually in a footnote, needs to be removed.ScottyBerg (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So you accepts that Michelin stars make a restaurant noteworthy but want it stated on a more prominent place??????? Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the reference to Michelin ratings should be removed entirely from the notability guideline. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

But you still haven't found a single example of a Michelin three-star restaurant that wasn't actually notable. Why should we remove an apparently accurate statement?

Put another way, why is it okay to say that someone who wins an Oscar is notable—not because winning makes you inherently notable, but because all winners get a lot of publicity—but it's not okay to say that someone who wins a third star is notable, even though three-star restaurants get just as much publicity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Because we're not just talking about Michelin three-star restaurants, but every restaurant ever rated by that guidebook, at any level. We're elevating a guidebook that has rated thousands of restaurants to the status of the Academy Awards, and granting automatic notability to all restaurants mentioned by that restaurant guidebook and that restaurant guidebook alone. So if at any time in history a restaurant received a one-star Michelin or “bib gourmand” rating, "good value for the money," it automatically is considered notable. The bib gormand rating goes back 56 years.

Since notability is permanent, this means that every one-star and “bib gourmand” restaurant in the history of the Michelin Guide warrants an article. There are currently 4000 Michelin restaurants in France alone. While such restaurants are likely to be notable if they are in the United States, because so few U.S. restaurants are rated by the Michelin Guide, I don't think that can be said with any confidence outside of the U.S., and especially in France.

If we raise the cutoff above one, where do we make it? Do we limit that only to, say, two star restaurants outside of France and above two stars in France?

And why just Michelin? Why not extend the same automatic notability to restaurants that get the AAA Five Diamond Award? "For 2010, just 0.28 percent of the 58,000 AAA/CAA Approved lodgings and restaurants (31,000 lodgings and 27,000 restaurants) that received the prestigious designation." It's possible that all such restaurants are notable. Then why not four? Why not one? Why not just Five-Diamond restaurants outside of the U.S.?

And what about the Forbes Travel Guide, formerly known as the Mobil Guide? I think that to avoid being discriminatory we would have to include at least some restaurants from both the AAA and Mobil/Forbes guides, if we're going to include guidebooks. Then the question would be, at what level? We're talking about thousands if not hundreds of thousands of restaurants, many if not most totally run of the mill, and I think that would include many if not most French Michelin one-star and “bib gourmand” restaurants that have existed throughout history.

As a matter of fact, the way the guideline is now written, such guidebooks may possibly be included, because the footnote says "examples of the latter include." Only Michelin is singled out as a "list . . . so notable that each entry can be presumed notable." Why not include the AAA and Forbes guidebooks? Why are we singling out Michelin? Why not the restaurants praised by the Fodor guides, the Frommer guidebooks or Lonely Planet? I think that a better idea, for notability purposes, is to simply make no reference to any guidebook's rankings, and simply include restaurants that have received coverage in multiple independent sources.ScottyBerg (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, try to be realistic. "Michelin starred restaurants" is just one category within the wider category of notable restaurants. Another categories within the notable restaurants could be the restaurants named in the AAA, Mobil/Forbes, or other guides. If those categories don't exist, my answer is simple: fixit. They are not less the Michelin restaurants, they are just mentioned in another guide. If there is a guide for the best hotdog and hamburger restaurants in the USA and Canada, and the community decides that it is a valuable, noteworthy guide, Wikipedia should have articles about them. But even then restaurants can be notable for other reasons than great food, like Nam Kee (which featured in a best-selling Dutch novel and a film based on the novel), Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop (frequented by students who later became US presidents), Columbia Restaurant (the oldest Spanish restaurant in the USA) and, unfortunately, the Golden Dragon, San Francisco (Golden Dragon massacre). Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If those restaurants are notable, then that should be determined by reliable third party sources, not by what some guidebook says about them whether it is Michelin, Mobil AAA, Frommer, Fodor or some other. Our standards have always been that notability is determined by sources, not by third party reference works, whether or not they view their ratings as "awards" or as ultimate arbiters of "fine dining." We don't care if the food they serve is any good. We only care if the restaurant meets notability standards. It could be swill for all we care. This is an encyclopedia, not a fine-dining guide. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Michelin Guide is a "reliable third-party source". In fact, if the statement you're trying to support is "This restaurant was awarded two stars in the Michelin Guide," then the Guide is the single most reliable source in the universe for that statement, and the fact that the Guide is a third-party (=not owned or controlled by the restaurants they're reviewing) is amply documented in multiple sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the Michelin Guide is a reliable third party source, but the language in the footnote that a listing can be "presumed notable." Let's focus on that and not be sidetracked. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NotBW, central to your reply is the assumption that Michelin starred restaurants are inherently notable. This discussion is about the validity of that assumption, and what "the community"'s thoughts are regarding it. You seem to be missing that point. Pyrope 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And central to your opinion is the assumption that Michelin starred restaurants are inherently not-notable. Do we agree to disagree? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not my position at all. My position is that being starred does not automatically confer notability, but that stars may contribute toward notability in addition to multiple, significant, reliable, third-party sources that directly discuss the subject of the article. As I pointed out elsewhere, your article on De Swaen is extremely borderline in establishing its notability. What you have there amounts to one brief write-up in an online trade magazine, a catering supply company blog, a number of pages drawn from the restaurant or its successor's own webpages, and tabulated summaries of Michelin guides past. That's it. Not one single general circulation newspaper article, not a single reference to it ever having been discussed in the mainstream media, not any evidence that it has had any wider societal impact other than being a place that some people in Oisterwijk occasionally ate at and that chefs worked there. It is a mundane, even dull, article that adds little to no encyclopedic value. Despite its Michelin star this restaurant, from the sources provided, seems to have been a distinctly run-of-the-mill establishment. All you can really say is "it was a restaurant and now it is not", because that's all the sources say. That isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Pyrope 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

17 years one or more stars and you regard it borderline notability? On what planet do you live? FGS, Misset Horeca is the oldest trade magazin about restaurants in The Netherlands. Research it a bit, and you can see that it has also a paper version, as far as I know for at least 20 years. The blog was used to show that the restaurant closed and lost its last star. De Telegraaf is a national newspaper, the biggest in the country. If the article is that bad, why don't you nominate it for deletion? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

After chacking it turned out that I was very cautious with Misset Horeca. They celebrate their 60th anniversery in 2012! Every two weeks about 18.000 magazins roll off the presses, for a Dutch trade magazin very much! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it was central to his opinion, but I can't speak for that editor. What I would like to point out is that the guideline is so worded that all restaurants in the guide are considered inherently notable, whether they receive stars or not. The majority of restaurants in the Michelin guide do not receive stars, according to the article to which you linked above[3]: "...in the Michelin Guide to France 2009, 3,531 restaurants are included, but just 548 received a star. Most of these restaurants -- 449 -- received one-star, 73 received two stars, and 26 received three." ScottyBerg (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: what Michelin Guide are you looking in? There are several Guides, for France, The Netherlands, New York, Great Britain and Ireland and a few others. Second question: could you agree with a rewording so only the starred restaurants in the Guides are mentioned (in fact, in such a way dat also high scoring restaurants of other Guides are included.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Scotty has hit the issue on the head, we need to eliminate the references to Michelin in the statement. Ratings are problematic, and we must not use them to establish notability. by eliminating the mention here, that will go a long way to fixing the problem. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Subjective break

I would also agree that ScottyBerg has pretty much identified the problem here. If a restaurant is notable, ipso facto it will have been noticed by the wider world. For there not to be any further coverage of the restaurant outside of Red Guide is strongly suggestive of the fact that the restaurant in question isn't actually that significant. Pyrope 18:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact it works a bit the other way with my articles: assuming that Michelin starred articles are almost automatically notable (has somebody an exeption for me?), I did not look for other sources. If the community decides that a Michelin star is not enough as evidence, I have to start looking at other sources. And I have no doubt that I will find them for each and every restaurant I have described yet. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is in fact what we are saying: The presence in the guide, or any other guide, and the resulting rating does not establish or confer notability on said facility and that reliable sources do. What we want to see is the elimination of the clause about the Michelin guide from WP:Org to ensure that others do not make the mistake. What we should do is reinstate the discussion about restaurant notability guidelines and hash the issue out there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Guide is a reliable source (as are many other guidebooks). It therefore does contribute to notability (but almost nothing to the "significant coverage" requirements).
• Having a star in the Guide is a marker or proxy for being notable. That's why it only makes the subject "presumed notable", not "inherently and unquestionably notable". Zero organizations in the history of the world are inherently notable. All of them must eventually produce sources. But there are a few qualities that let us make a convenient guess at whether an organization is likely to be notable. Having a star in the Guide is one of those qualities. We have never yet found a non-notable restaurant with a star. (As for merely being listed, I'd be surprised if very many of them were non-notable, but it's possible, just like it's possible that some Fortune 500 company, Oscar winner, or NYSE-listed publicly traded company will be non-notable in practice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times, The Boston Globe and numerous other sources all meet the standards as reliable sources, but a review from them are not acceptable indicators of being notable because of the inherent subjective nature of a review. Additionally, these sources have at one time or another have produced differing opinions of the same facilities as stated in the Michelin guide article. At best reviews, no matter the source, can only provide verifiability of the subject. I can agree, if I am reading your post correctly, that we can cite them for secondary information within an article. What we are claiming in this discussion is that contributors should not use them as a way of claiming a restaurant was well reviewed by a famous book, therefore it is notable. The removal of this clause would go a long way in fixing that problem. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy, that's simply not true. There's not one word in any notability guideline that says "subjective" independent reliable sources don't count as receiving attention from the world at large. In fact, "subjective" sources are the most valuable indications of notability in certain areas (e.g., artwork). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Restaurant-wise we only have to look at Mzoli's. Which is one of the few articles created by Jimbo Wales. After its creation it generated a debate whether it should be deleted or not and this was picked up by the main stream media and bingo: instant notability. I doubt it would have survived being nominated for deletion if it had been created by any other Wikipedian. It does not seem very remarkable to me based on its description in the article. So my view is that even when the mainstream press is hyping something up we should keep a cool head.S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, let's not get hung on for semantics. For all intents and purposes, "presumed notable" has been utilized in AfD discussions as identical to "unquestionably notable" or simply "it's notable." Deletion discussions have hinged on that footnote. If it's your position that the Michelin Guide should count no more than other reliable sources, then you should support removal of the mention of Michelin in the footnote. Also, as I've pointed out above, the guideline makes no mention of stars. It states that all restaurants listed in the guide are presumed notable, whether or not they have stars. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And can you produce an example of a "merely listed" restaurant that didn't receive publicity merely for being listed? I'm open to the possibility that the wording needs to be tightened up, but simple assertions of non-notability aren't the same as proof. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It doesn't mean a thing if a restaurant has received publicity for being listed. That's considered "trivial coverage" under the guideline. I think it's even sub-trivial because it's little more than corporate public relations and press agentry.

Let's remember what's at issue here. We have a footnote that requires us to assume that a restaurant is notable because it is listed in the Michelin Guide, and the footnote is so worded that it could and probably does include other guidebooks: Fodor, Frommers, Forbes, Lonely Planet and the AAA Guide. That's an end-run around the requirement that any organization be subject to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Remember too that the "depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." How can we consider the depth of coverage when we are precluded from doing so by this "Michelin listing is assumed as notable" footnote? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that "it doesn't mean a thing if a restaurant has received publicity for being listed" is simply false. If a restaurant gets a feature-length article in a newspaper because of its listing (and that doesn't appear to be unusual), then that feature-length article means quite a lot. A feature-length newspaper article is practically the definition of "significant coverage". "Trivial coverage" means a couple of sentences, or otherwise containing so little information that you can't write much about the subject based on it, not coverage that you personally believe was prompted by some trivial reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have in mind a lengthy feature article. I was thinking of what I was actually seeing as I googled New York restaurants that had received Michelin listings, which were articles mentioning it in passing. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of ORG like any other sub-notability guideline is to assert criteria that, assuming the topic meets them, there will likely be additional sources to help eventually meet the GNG in the future, but require said sources to be found or wait for them to appear. It is, effectively, a temporarily allowance from the GNG. Being listed in the Red Guide seems like such a reasonable case, given the weight that those ratings have on the restaurant industry, regardless if negative or positive; if the restaurant has one or more stars, then likely there are more local sources to go into depth on that. But again, that's all presumption. If a restaurant appears in the Red Guide and within five years no sources appear beyond that, then yes, it may not be notable. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a non-notable Michelin starred restaurant? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point, as Pyrope has stated, it is only an indicator that there is notability as any restaurant that has been well received by critics from any major source will usually get secondary press coverage. However it is that secondary press coverage that establishes the notability and not the review itself. As I have stated in other areas every single restaurant gets reviewed at some point by a reliable source so it becomes a case that reviews are like listings in the phone book, business directories, etc. Reviews themselves, and Michelin is still a review despite how it is regarded, are too subjective and we require objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (per WP:Note) Just because it is in the guide doesn't mean it has been shown that it has received said coverage. As it has been stated elsewhere by others being well reviewed by the guide is an indicator that there is probably proper independent coverage about the facility in other reliable, secondary sources; however unto itself an appearance in the guide, or any other similar source, does not confer immediate notability.

Additionally, the subjective nature of a review and differing opinions between reviewers and guides, makes reviews themselves problematic. As stated in the Michelin guide article, there are cases where well regarded and reviewed eateries received no stars in the Red book despite contrary opinions espoused by reviewers attached to other reliable sources that reviewed the facility (In the case mentioned, The New York Times and Zagat). Again I will state that the guide can be used to support secondary claims within an article, but it does not confer notability as some claim. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the statement at WP:N. Objective evidence does not require the sources to be objective; it requires that there is, objectively aka without any question, independent sources showing significant coverage (typically secondary, meaning analysis, synthesis, and critiques are involved) of the topic. Reviews and other subjective sources -- as long as they are from a reliable source -- are considered appropriate for this. A restaurant or any other type of establishment that has received multiple reviews from reliable , independent sources will be considered notable, irregardless of what other sources exist. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But this footnote makes a Michelin listing dispositive, and that's how it's been interpreted at AfDs, where marginal restaurants have been kept solely on the basis of Michelin, without seriously probing further as required by WP:ORG. See for instance this one[4], where the nominator withdrew the AfD after the footnote was pointed out, and the nominators all cited the Michelin listing as sufficient to establish notability, or this one[5], in which a restaurant was so lacking in notability that it was listed for speedy deletion, which was thwarted on the basis of it being an "awarded restaurant." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain: the GNG (what's stated at WP:N) requires the objective existence of multiple secondary sources for a topic to be presumed notable. We recognize that for some specific areas that is not always immediately possible, and that's why we have sub-notability guidelines (SNGs) like this one, to describe cases where, because a specific criteria is met, there will likely be sources not yet discovered or in the future that will allow the topic to meet the GNG, and thus we presume it notable. A common case is if a previously "unknown" (lacking an article on Wikipedia) person wins the Nobel prize. It's been well established that all Nobel Prize winners will have biographical details in reliable sources along with the impact of their work/effort to earn the Nobel, and therefore we are pretty confident that such winners will meet the GNG given enough time to collect those sources; ergo, we allow the article on that person.

The same logic is being applied here. Being rated in Michelin (which only rates restaurants that meet specific standards) may not be as important as the Nobel, but it is one of the highest honors that a restaurant can receive. Per how I read this, it has been established that a restaurant receiving one or more Michelin stars is likely to have been critically reviewed by other sources or will gain more critical reviews because of getting such a star. Thus, over time, the GNG will be met. Hence, this is said to be a proper criteria for an SNG. Mind you, I personally have some reservations about that fact but I'm going by the consensus that appeared to have been previously established for this criteria that this does occur. If you don't believe this to be the case (That receiving a Michelin will lead to more pre-existing/new reviews), that's a point then to challenge and gain consensus on removing.

And to re-reiterate, GNG and SNGs are all about presumed notability. There may be a lot of secondary sources, but that doesn't mean we believe the topic to be notable. Similarly, while a restaurant may have a Michelin star, if no reviews or additional sources are discovered for it after several years from receiving that star, it's probably not notable as originally thought, and deletion is possible. But when there's a good likelihood that notability can be established in time, we should not be deleting things. Hence, as long as there's consensus that getting a Michelin star will likely end up with more sourcing, then its a valid SNG criteria. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But as I've repeatedly pointed out, the footnote does not refer to Michelin stars. It refers to Michelin listings, and is so worded that it can refer to other guidebooks as well - AAA, Frommer, the Forbes/Mobil guide, Lonely Planet. The vast majority of restaurants listed in the Michelin guides do not receive stars. As I've also noted, the significance of a Michelin listing is different in America, where they are rare, than they would be in France, where there are thousands of Michelin-listed restaurants. I think also that you're reading more into the provenance of this footnote than is justified, as the footnote was added without a consensus being established, or any extensive discussion. It was added a few months ago, and only became an issue recently, because of the AfD discussions that I mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If it just a listing, where a good fraction of the entries aren't rated, then this is a problem. Being listed with stars is one thing (given the weight of that star) but lacking any stars, being listed does not make it notable. Was there any discussion about this footnote being added, because SNGs, like the GNG, need global consensus. I'd argue that if this was just added without discussion, it should be removed and a more formal RFC started to determine if its a legitimate criteria. Mind you, I don't know how they choose what to put in the listing, but there may be criteria that Michelin uses that actually does relate to notability here, but looking at the situation from a very high level overview, this doesn't seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the language of the footnote couldn't be plainer. It says "listing." No, there was no discussion. It was mentioned on the talk page here but was not noticed until recently, when it became an issue in AfDs. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Yeah, that's no real discussion towards consensus. I think even elsewhere (possibly at WT:CSD?) there was discussion about the deletion of a Fortune 500 company where, because they were like a commodities company with no physical product or major influential business practices, their only claim to fame was just being on the F500 list, and deletion was appropriate.

Now as I read the guideline better, I see what is being said is that being in F500 or a Michelin guide counts as "one source" towards notability (its more than a trivial mention), but that's only one source. GNG in general requires multiple sources. A restaurant that has a Michelin listed and, say, two or three other reviews from reliable local sources can be presumed to be notable. A restaurant that only has the Michelin listing cannot be considered notable. The footnote's language is right, but I see what you're saying about being mistaken as allowing the listing as an only source to be used for demonstration of notability. Some language needs to be changed or added to get around that. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it has definitely been interpreted to mean that a Michelin listing establishes notability. I've argued pretty much what you're saying, but it has not been an accepted interpretation of the rule, and frankly I can understand why my view has been rejected, as the rule literally says "presumed notable." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally have no objection to specifying "being awarded a star" rather than "ever listed", since the goal of that sentence is largely to say that while being on most "top 100" lists is irrelevant, being on some lists is a pretty good hint that there will almost certainly be sources if you do a proper search for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we just take out the language, as Masem suggested, and visit the subject afresh with an RfC. We can present multiple possibilities, including mentioning no guidebooks and mentioning others, such as the AAA Five-Diamond, Mobil, etc. That way we can get a fresh consensus, as this discussion is a bit messy, and also get wider community input. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If we go the RfC route, which I think is definitely a good idea, I'd suggest that we let it run its course through January before adding any language. This is the holiday season and many editors are away. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the phrase "listed in the Michelin Red Guide" and nothing more, it is possible that you are right. I don't know the Guide by heart. Would you be happy when the phrase is reworked to "the Star and Bib Gourmand listings in the Michelin Red Guide"? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the "you" is in your post, but speaking personally I wouldn't be "happy" with that language at all. My feeling is that the language should be removed entirely, for reasons I'm not going to repeat. But I think that we should commence an RfC, and get broad community input on this, as Masem has suggested. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the policy was changed without consensus or discussion, the footnote should be removed entirely, as Masem suggested, pending the RfC. However, I'm not going to do that, and I'd respectfully hint that since he brought up the idea, he may want to take the initiative. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Since the policy was changed without consensus or discussion":

• ORG is a guideline, not a policy.
• Our actual policy on changing guidelines says that advance discussion is not necessary.
• Our policy on consensus also says that written documentation of agreement in advance is not required and that its absence is never proof that there was no consensus. The fact that it's been in the guideline and uncontested for nine months suggests that there actually was a consensus for it (although that may have changed, of course).
• But even though advance discussion is not necessary, it was discussed. Whether inclusion (or at least earning stars) in the Michelin Guide suggests notability has been discussed at least as far back as in 2007, and the specific sentence in question was directly discussed at the time of its addition, and received zero objections from any of the 200 editors watching this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• BRD says editors can change guideline and policy even without discussions. However, if you BRD, and the change is disagreed with, even years later, then reverting it and discussing is the next step. This change was made, based on that discussion, after a whole 20 minutes of opening the topic and with only 2 editors in the thread. That's no where near enough time to tell if the change had consensus, and just because people watch and don't respond doesn't mean that the lack of response is explicit acceptance for that.
• Starting an RFC is completely within line to decide if that footnote is appropriate or not in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started one. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On the failed AFD of L'Auberge

Yes, and I remember you nominating a restaurant for deletion because it was (amongst other things) a Dutch restaurant with Dutch sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant). Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it was "Long-defunct restaurant, only incidental mentions in articles about non-notable chef and in directories. Fails WP:ORG." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote you: These are all Dutch-language publications, and I have no idea if they are reliable.... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I didn't. And you know what? This hasn't got a darn thing to do with notability standards, so let's put an end to this side-talk. Now. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How can you judge over notability standards if you refuse to do your homework and check the supplied references? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Night, there's no rule that says people have to research everything in advance. If they're wrong, then people at AFD will tell them that they're wrong. There's no need to keep hassling them for making an honest mistake.

This is true when you can't read the sources named, but it's also true in many other circumstances. Notability is not about the existence of sources written in English, or available online, or named in any given version of an article. It's about whether independent sources have been published, no matter what the language or media or location of those sources. Not everyone realizes the full implications of that standard: "doing your homework" is almost impossible to do perfectly every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but people pointed me at WP:BEGIN. That counts for everyone, or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

BEGIN (aka BEFORE) is encouraged but not required. In fact, it is extremely unusual for any nominator to scrupulously follow all sixteen numbered pieces of advice there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, they threatend me with blocks when I would not adhere to it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Were many of the articles you nominated being kept? Were your nominations seen as disruptive or frivolous? If someone is screwing up, we can (and will) make it mandatory for that person. We can and have also prohibited individuals from nominating any articles at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That was because you were nominating articles again and again that the most basic search would reveal have multiple reliable sources and since both WP:V and WP:N explicitly are about sources existing, not sources being present in the article, you were wasting lots of user's time with nominations that could not succeed. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the underlying concern: I believe we need to require sourcing to be present in articles and I believe we need a process for deleting article that are unsourced after a call for sources, and the elapse of a designated time period without sourcing being placed, but until the underlying policies are changed, nominations as those you were making were and remain disruptive. AfD is not the place to make this change. The policies that are invoked at AfD are.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Should Michelin Guide restaurant listings be presumed as notable?

The guideline contains the following footnote, which was inserted in March 2011 without discussion:

Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants.

Some editors have expressed concern that this footnote has led to articles about run-of-the-mill restaurants that do not meet the guideline's requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, as well as restaurants for which there was no depth of coverage.

The guideline's language ("examples of the latter include") is broad enough to incorporate other restaurant guide listings (AAA Five Diamonds, the Forbes Travel Guide (formerly Mobil Travel Guide), Fodor, Frommer and Lonely Planet, but none of these are specifically mentioned, which might be construed as Eurocentric and not giving restaurants prominently mentioned in those guides, but not in Michelin, unfair treatment. Or it might be an argument for making no mention of guidebooks at all.

Among the possibilities discussed are:

• Revise the wording so that it mentions only restaurants with at least one Michelin star or Bib Gourmand (good value for money) status, or perhaps two or three stars, as presumed notable.
• Revise the wording so that other guidebooks are mentioned, so as to avoid Eurocentrism and not give Michelin-listed or -rated restaurants, whose criteria have been widely disputed, a special advantage on Wikipedia.
• Remove the mention of Michelin entirely from the footnote, and make no mention of any other restaurant guidebook.

--ScottyBerg (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's a somewhat larger issue and not just on the restaurant side: One of the problem that I see when I read the existing line (and why I suggested the RFC) is this: A statement like "If businesses listed in a specific guide are typically notable by the GNG alone, then we can presume any business listed in the guide is notable as well." is fine in of itself. The problem are the examples: Fortune 500 companies are not always notable since the metric for being on the list is how much money the company processes, meaning that several securities firms that have no real end product or business approach are listed, but these companies aren't assuredly notable. Similarly, the Michelin guide, while listing restaurants with star ratings (which is an aspect of notability) also lists other restaurants with no rating, and there's again no assurances that these non-starred restaurants are notable. When I try to think of what could be replacement examples, I'm at a loss for any case where every entry in the guide is assuredly notable, but that doesn't mean there exist a good example.
• If a good example(s) can be found, then the line should be kept with these examples. If there are no valid examples, then the line should be struck completely. Now whether there needs to be something along the idea of Michelin stars or the like, that's a separate point of consideration. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• It should be noted that ScottyBerg does not regard Michelin starred restaurants as notable ([6], [7]) and therefore uses every trick in the book to downgrade the importance of Michelin stars. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for some of his remarks. Reliable third party sources were ignored because they were in the Dutch language. Mr. Berg is campaigning against Michelin, what may not be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg may be mistaken on Michelin stars (which I agree would likely be criteria indicating notability) but this is specifically about the Michelin guide which includes both starred and unstarred businesses. In relation to that, Scottyberg has a completely appropriate point, and that's what we need to focus on, not the editor's own agenda. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the the wording of the sentence in question by definition makes it correct, even if the logic at first glance appears circular. It basically says that if the guide has a track record where all of it's listings can achive wp:notability by other means, then it is a pretty good indicator of notability. There also appears here to be the confluence of the wording and at least one person here who has said that they AFD articles they really haven't looked closely at, and use a "when in doubt, AFD it" approach. I think that listing in one of the enumerated guides should at least force those persons to look further into the particular case and list their findings that the restaurant doesn't appear to be notable before AFD'ing or deleting.

Possibly add a qualifier: "unless a more thorough review indicates othersise" ?North8000 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See my first comment, as I agree that the general statement with no examples - that appearing within a guide where most entries have been shown to meet the GNG is a presumption of notability - is logically correct and follows from most other SNGs. The issue is that when it comes to identifying examples, the F500 and Michelin Guide are bad ones, and for the life of me I can't think of suitable replacement ones. In other words, guides are usually so broad in their coverage with lax inclusion measures that while the statement is logical, there are no cases where that actually exists. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I've not seen or used those guides. I just randomly wander when I travel. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Entries in reputable guides such as the Michelin one are prima facie evidence of notability provided that they are independent. Guides which take paid entries would not be suitable for our purpose because they are promotional in nature. The Michelin guides have their critics but seem to be sufficiently independent for our purpose. So, the basic answer to the RfC question is Yes. Warden (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain the inclusion metrics that Michelin uses for their guides? Clearly, when they give a restaurant one or more stars, they are listed, and there's a certain weight in the industry on those stars (eg: there will likely be more reviews due to gaining those stars), but what about entries without stars? Why are they included and what evidence to notability does that give? Will the GNG ultimately be met just because it was listed in Michelin? --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? So long as 100% of the restaurants listed in the Guide that we've actually checked have proven to be notable upon thorough inspection, does it really matter how the Guide chooses what to list?

We're not looking for "inherent" notability, like "this is so important that it's obviously notable even if nobody has ever written about it". We're looking for a shortcut to guessing whether a given restaurant should be presumed notable. We presume that Oscar winners are notable, because so far, when we've checked, every single one of them has proven to be notable. We equally presume that Fortune 500 companies are notable, because so far, when we've checked, every single one of them has proven to be notable. We are equally presuming that Michelin-listed restaurants are notable, because so far, when we've checked, every single one of them has proven to be notable. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have an Oscar winner, a Fortune 500 company, or a Michelin restaurant turn up tomorrow that is non-notable, but so far, we haven't ever seen one that wasn't, so it makes a quick shortcut towards an initial guess at notability.

For all I care, the Guide could be throwing darts at a map. What matters is not how they select restaurants. What matters is whether their selection has a very strong correlation with the existence of multiple, in-depth independent reliable sources—and it does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Michelin guides include more than just restaurants given Michelin stars, and I believe from what I've read that there are restaurants, not given stars but in the guide, that are not otherwise notable. But when they are given a star or more, then they are. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have an example in mind? Because so far, whenever we've checked, we've been able to demonstrate notability for every single restaurant listed. (Unlike many guides, they don't list every place that they investigate: "Establishments that Michelin deems unworthy of a visit are not included in the guide.") We've had a few vague, hand-waving assertions that some listed restaurants might not be notable... but zero examples of non-notable listed restaurants have been forthcoming. If it does list non-notable restaurants, we need some proof, not just gut feelings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Some have claimed that the Michelin guides in Europe are far more inclusive than the US guides. I don't have examples to compare against, but that's a completely fair point if there actually is that difference. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The footnote is OK. It may be specified that the only restaurants with stars should be assumed notable, but I'm not sure if this change is really needed. In any case the notability of the restaurant will be decided on per-restaurant basis. What is more important, is that by making the footnote more exact we would make it less useful for the guideline. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I wouldn't mind tightening up the language to mention starred restaurants, because what we're trying to communicate is the concept of a group that obviously (to anyone who's familiar with the subject area) has an overwhelming number of independent sources available, and the top tier is more obvious that way. But I think it's technically correct as it stands, because (despite repeated requests) nobody's yet been able to produce an example of a non-notable restaurant that is "only" listed. The closest we've come, apparently, is Scotty complaining that sometimes the sources aren't written in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Eliminate the mention of the guide and any other similar source. Any form of restaurant review from any source are problematic because of several reasons:
  • Specifically with Michelin, the guide has problems which are clearly stated in the Michelin guide article.
  • The reviews are subjective, not objective. They are an opinion of the individual who is performing the review. This is not an opinion like found in an op/ed piece in a newspaper which is researched and cites facts but a personal opinion of whether the reviewer likes the food.
  • The reviewing source has no defined metric that can be independently verified and confirmed. There are some items that can be confirmed, but food not so much. Yes there are obvious things such as cleanliness that can be commented on, but those are only snapshots of that one visit. Taste is different, so...
  • Restaurant reviews are based on a biological function that differs from individual to individual, taste. This function can be affected by the mood of the individual, smoking, drinking and the physical state of the reviewer (e.g. a head cold can screw up taste due to sinus congestion). Further the capability of taste can differ from one individual to another.
  • There are different cultural takes on food and what is considered good, quality cuisine. This cultural bias can effect the reviewer and taint the review, even if it unintentional.

For all of these reasons, I say wee need to eliminate the clause. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Be aware: Subjective reviews are generally considered as valid sources for demonstrating notability, as long as the review is from a known reliable expert source in said field and considered independent. Notability does not require sources to be objective. That's not dismissing the first part of your claim that there may be problems with the guide towards its reliability and independence, but being a subjective source is absolutely not a reason to dismiss the guide. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a different case as the Michelin Guide was based on reviews of the public. Those reviews are often based on personal preferences, bad mood, head colds, bias or plain falsified (see: A review issued 20 years after the restaurant closed) But the more quality Guides (a.o. Michelin, GaultMillau) work with professional inspectors. And every restaurant will be visited by several different inspectors. Individual preferences are unlikely to weigh in.

Give me a Guide with the same status as the Michelin Guide in Europe, but specialized in hamburgers & hotdogs, and I would have not problem with adding it. The same with guides that specialize in the Mexican, Spanish, Mandarin, Thai, Turkish or what so ever kitchen. If they are just as reliable as the Michelin, they are welcome. The fact that the Michelin does not rank hotdogstands or McDonalds as cuisine, is not a reason to degrade it as unreliable. Wikipedia is already suffering from a pro-American bias, please don't make it worse. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy, I get the impression that you don't actually know anything about the Guide. So here's what one reliable source says on the subject of your belief that it's just "a personal opinion of whether the reviewer likes the food":

"I asked her what she liked about it.

“It’s not really a ‘like’ and a ‘not like,’ ” she said. “It’s an analysis. You’re eating it and you’re looking for the quality of the products. At this level, they have to be top quality. You’re looking at ‘Was every single element prepared exactly perfectly, technically correct?’ And then you’re looking at the creativity. Did it work? Did the balance of ingredients work? Was there good texture? Did everything come together? Did something overpower something else? Did something not work with something else?"

Op-eds, by contrast, aren't required to do any sort of research. They're supposed to be just somebody's opinion, and many times they include provably wrong "facts" or mere speculation (see, e.g., practically every op-ed on the subject of the current economic situation or the next Republican presidential candidate). But even an op-ed shows that the "world at large" is paying attention to the subject, which is all we need for a notability challenge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Eliminate the clause. Treat guides like any other sources; if a restaurant has significant coverage (not just a listing) in an important guide, that counts toward notability, but nothing is automatic. Inclusion in a list counts for nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Biased RFC question

You know, Scotty, your new assertions that this footnote was added "without discussion" is beginning to strike me as a deliberate, manipulative lie, and that's not making me happy. You're perfectly aware of the discussion about its addition, which has been linked repeatedly by you, in comments in which you acknowledge that it actually was "mentioned on the talk page" in a discussion. I agree with your prior comments that it was added "without extensive discussion" and "after a brief discussion" (emphasis added) , but to say now, in a section intended to attract attention from people who haven't followed your previous admissions that a discussion did happen, that it was added "without discussion" is simply false. A deliberate, demonstrable falsehood like this cannot possibly qualify as a "neutral" statement of the dispute that WP:RFC requires. I suggest that you promptly figure out a way to re-word the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added "substantial." I think it's interesting how defenders of the current language are intent on focusing on everything but the content of the footnote, and are resorting to baiting and personal attacks. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

One editor having a question, followed by a second editor's response and then subsequent change to the guideline 20 minutes later is by no means "a discussion" when it comes to establishing consensus. He's completely fair in challenging this on that aspect alone, and kudos for not actually disrupting the guideline page by reverting it before starting discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I also wanted to note that this impugning of my motives is really pretty silly. I encountered one new article on a WP:MILL restaurant while recent-changes patrolling, and put a notability tag on it. That doesn't put me on an "anti-Michelin crusade." There are definitely passions stirred up by this trivial anomaly in the notability guidelines, but certainly not on my part. One editor was blocked for harassing and attacking me on this very issue. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you bluntly ignore TWO Michelin stars and AfD the article as not-notable after a few extra sources were added just because they were in Dutch... well, to put it mildly, it throws a very strange light on this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you were the editor who was blocked, it sheds a not-so-strange light on your vitriol. Nobody "ignored" anything. Even though this restaurant had two Michelin stars, it received only incidental mention in Dutch publications, in articles mainly focusing on the chef. The fact that this totally run-of-the-mill restaurant, operated by a non-notable chef, received two Michelin stars is actually a pretty good example of the problem with using Michelin stars, even two Michelin stars, as an assumption of notability. I am at a loss to understand why you keep citing this AfD, as it illustrates why the footnote should be removed. As I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia is not a guide to fine dining. I'm sure this restaurant served fine food. But we don't care if restaurants serve fine food. They can serve garbage for all we care. A restaurant can serve fine food but still not warrant a Wikipedia article because it does not receive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It is not our mission to publicize Michelin-rated restaurants, dead and alive, meritorious as they all may be and have been. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, still ignoring the whole discussion. But if you want to start warring again, have your go. You won't bait me this time. Maybe you should write some articles before burning down articles of others. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit weird that you state that the articles (from two national newspapers) focussed on the chef yet maintain that he is still non-notable. That sounds a bit like doublethink to me, holding two contradictory statements as true at the same time. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what happened on that past AFD or what ScottyBerg's input to that was. That's not the question being asked, and so this should be dropped. If you think that ScottyBerg's initiation of this RFC was in bad faith, be aware that I agree on the assessment that the lines in question do not match with the general standard for notability and would have likely started the RFC to ask if they are appropriate. So I suggest dropping the accusations at ScottyBerg and focus on the discussion in good faith. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

SpeakFree, there is even less of substance available on the head chef of that restaurant than there is on that totally obscure, long-defunct establishment. We don't even know if he is alive or dead! That, unfortunately, is the problem with this footnote. Suddenly a completely obscure chef becomes "notable" because he worked at two restaurants that had Michelin stars. As for L'Auberge, we don't even know what kind of food it served! What were its signature dishes? Perhaps the food was French, based on the name. Hell, maybe it was Creole, though I admit that that's unlikely as this restaurant was in a small town in the Netherlands. Maybe he just liked French names. All we know is that this restaurant existed, that two chefs worked there, and that it went out of business. If you can't state why a particular restaurant is noteworthy beyond the fact that some anonymous editors at the Michelin Guide liked it, I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that a Wikipedia article is warranted. I'm really amazed that we're having this discussion at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't know when Jack the Ripper, Amelia Earhart and Lord Lucan died but I will rest that case. All I'll note is that I don't like the fact that every tidbit that happened in the 2000s/2010s is notable e.g. Murder of Deriek Crouse but things which happened before we had broadband internet connections are somehow less-notable because there isn't an abundance of online sources available. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If the chef of that restaurant vanished over the Pacific, or murdered people in the basement of that restaurant, we might have something more to say about that restaurant other than the fact that it existed. But you know, in all seriousness, you've actually, unintentionally, raised a valid point. What we're seeing are articles being created based on the fact that at one point they were rated by Michelin. The actual Michelin Guide is not the source for the articles, as evidenced by the fact that we aren't told anything about these restaurants. Not their address, not their cuisine or anything. Instead we have articles sourced to online listings indicating that at one point the restaurants received recognition from Michelin. The Guide is not even being used as a source. We just know that at one point the restaurant was mentioned in that source. That exemplifies the sheer inanity of this footnote. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You try to convince people that you are not on a anti-Michelin-crusade, but on the other hand you keep attacking more or less everything related to the Michelin Guide. Why should I go to my library and order all Michelin Guides from 1957 to check them, when somebody else has summerized them already in 5-year periods? Most likely that would not help a thing, because you will denounce the sources because they are Dutch and not online. Even if your concern is sincere, your timing is so remarkable that I do not believe that you acted in good faith. The community defeated your AfD against L'Auberge, maybe on the grounds of the footnote, and suddenly, just after the defeat, you had a problem with the footnote. Remarkable. I suggested a rewrite of the sentence, but you just wanted the Michelin Guide out of it, full stop. No attempt to make a compromize from your side. I do not regard you attacks on the Michelin Guide as in the best interest of Wikipedia. Challenging the sentence under discussion could have done in a more cooperative style! Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen attacks on the Michelin guide, only on it's reliability of conferring wp:notability, which I don't imagine is in their mission statement` or corporate objectives. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed "substantial" per Masem's comment, and in reviewing the talk page discussion, which contained absolutely no discussion on this point, which we are now discussing (when not being sidetracked by this kind of silliness). ScottyBerg (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

• In my opinion, the line should be tweaked a bit. I believe further clarification needs to be made. Possibly stating:

"Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists is not considered important or significant, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. Inclusion within these lists does not forgo the requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, but is sufficient to forgo deletion in accordance with the A7 criteria for speedy deletion."

It is clear that the notability guidelines for organizations state that notability is made through significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Merely being listed among the Fortune 500 or the Michelin Guide does not provide leeway for automatic notability, void of the requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It is merely an indicator that the subject may be notable/significant/important, bypassing deletion in accordance with the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. (As a side note, I think it would be appropriate to add Billboard charts among the examples provided.) Just my two cents. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ow goodie! That is is difficult sentence you propose. I would suggest to tweak it as "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to starred restaurants. Even then, the normal rules of notability and sourcing still apply."

Instead of giving a very limited number of examples, the second sentence could also be replaced by a sentence like "For examples of such lists, see ...". The article containing the list should be fully protected, to avoid trouble. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent improvement, it avoids the problems of its starred, therefore notable... that arose in discussions. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Jeremy! Option 1 is now "a Michelin Guide to starred restaurants", while option 2 will move the list of important lists to another page. That new page is still a part of the notability guidelines, but it gives room to a wider list of important lists. Including the Fortune 500 and Michelin Guide, of course. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy is correct that being listed does not cause a restaurant to be notable, just like receiving an Oscar award or an Olympic medal does not cause an actor or athlete to be notable.

What makes a subject notable is independent sources plus compliance with WP:NOT plus editorial judgment. Some sorts of awards (like a Michelin listing) are useful as quick rules of thumb for notability, because there is a strong association between winning awards and being notable. However, this is always a matter of correlation, not causation, and it may be disproven in any given case. All subjects ultimately require verifiable evidence that the world at large has chosen to pay attention to them. There are no exceptions to this requirement—in the end. The purpose of these examples is to save editors time by focusing their deletion efforts on candidates that are likely not to be notable rather than those that are highly likely to be notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, Jeremy, its starred, therefore notable... is indeed not the case. It is more Its starred, therefore you can safely assume its notable...' On a lighter note: The Gourmand World Cookbook Awards named the 2006 Michelin Guide New York City the Best in the World in the Restaurant Guide category, an especially sweet win as it's Michelin's first guide covering the United States. ([8]) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

Now the RfC-period has expired, what is now exactly the conclusion? A stale or a minor rewrite? I do not see much support for a blunt removal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In late, but I support the inclusion of the clause. Silverseren^C 18:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about WP:NONPROFIT

Editors in a deletion discussion are expressing different opinions about how to interpret WP:NONPROFIT, specifically requirement #2, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." One opinion is that this requirement is basically similar to the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, namely that a nonprofit needs to show substantial third-party coverage. The other opinion is that the use of the word "verified" in the nonprofit requirement means that GNG does not apply and that the sources only need to VERIFY the organization's existence and its activities, rather than necessarily providing SUBSTANTIAL coverage. Any clarification would be appreciated. The discussion is here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Charity; you can skip to the bottom of the discussion which is rather long. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the coverage is required. We're not here to provide a free publicity service for non-profits (or commercial entities either). If the restriction isn't there, as I said in the discussion listed by Melanie, we'll be getting things like my Downby-in-the-Swamp Fish Protection Society's charity stall at Sunquern Thursday Market (definitely a non-profit...) coming in. Peridon (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is clearly expressed on the deletion discussion. This is not a continuation of the AfD. I'd be interested to hear an independent opinion on the difference between WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Those who say we need fairly substantial third-party coverage are correct. The sources have to do more than just verify existence (mere existence does not make anything notable). That said... substance is not necessarily a measure of the amount of text devoted to the topic. A short but meaningful reference can be substantial (ie "of substance"). The key is that the sources should actually talk about the organization, and not simply mention it in passing. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you have gone ahead and reworded WP:NONPROFIT. On what basis did you decide to reword it? There is now no need for point (1), because if point (2) is met the subject meets WP:GNG, so would be considered suitable for an article regardless of whether it was national or international in scope. Sionk (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously someone was confused by the previous language. Clarifying will prevent future confusion. Note that the rewording was simply a cut and paste from what was already stated at the top of the page... which applies to all organizations, of what ever nature (non-profits and for-profits alike).

As for the points... Point (1) is still needed, to indicate that purely local organizations are usually not considered notable (even if they pass GNG)... a substantial write up in a local paper may not be enough to indicate notability (a local paper may contain a substantial write-up about the local Oddfellows chapter... this is not enough to substantiate that the local chapter is notable enough for a Wikipedia article... the local paper may contain an article about the charitable organization that some of the town citizens have set to a help beloved town member recover after a recent car accident, but such sources are not enough to substantiate that this purely local charity is notable enough for Wikipeida). I suppose the two points could be swapped (ie first note that GNG applies... and then give the caveat that, passing GNG may not be enough... with a few exceptions, organizations also need to be national/international in scope). Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG that is disastrous! So you are now saying that local commercial organisations can have a Wikipedia article, but local non-commercial organisations can't. Wikipedia will turn into a commercial business directory!! Why the bias against charities and non-commercial organisations?

I'm surprised one editor can choose to re-write the guidance, I presumed it must have been developed through consensus and there was a logical reasoning behind it. A lot of 'alternative' notability standards are based on the premise that, if the subject meets certain conditions it is presumed almost certain it will be 'notable' e.g. Secondary schools are generally presumed to pass WP:GNG without having to test it. Musical groups who've had 2 albums produced by notable record companies are presumed to be notable etc. etc. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No... the exact same standards should apply to local commercial businesses that apply local non-profits. A write up in the local paper about how Joe's Garage is celebrating its 100th year in business is not enough to indicate that Joe's Garage is notable. However, local commercial enterprises can be different than local non-profits in one respect... they often conduct business outside the local area. This makes it more likely that a business will pass GNG. It does not guarantee that it will, it just makes it more likely. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing it (and by the way I agree that charities need significant coverage, not just verification, and that was how I read it), I have a comment about the requirement that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". I think that is a little extreme. It might be reasonable to demand a national scope in many countries, but in a country the size of the United States or China or Russia, that demand seems exorbitant, and it seems to me that a "regional" scope of activities should be enough. For example, a charity which serves all of California (a state larger than many countries) or all of New England (a six-state area with a population of 14 million) should be able to meet the "scope" requirement IMO. I'd like to see some recognition that there could be a level of scope in between "national" and "local". I already make this distinction in AfD discussions, where I give much more weight to a regional source (such as the Los Angeles Times) compared to a local source (such as the Pasadena Star-News). --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - 'national' is a bit different when comparing the US and Nauru. What level should be drawn, though? As Melanie points out, even dividing into 'states' causes discrepancies of size. State level, nation level in UK, whatever they call areas like Calvados in France (should know - went there last year...), and so on, it's an easily recognised delimiter. So long as coverage is at a level higher than the Deadman's Flats and Slumpville Mercury and Respondent, and fits the multiple coverage criterion, I'd go with state (and equivalent) level. The DFSMR paper is an obvious nohoper local, but papers like the Liverpool Echo sound local but cover very wide areas (in this case Merseyside, a large part of Cheshire and the whole of North Wales). If the paper is a daily, it's probably a good source. If weekly, it's normally just local stuff and the coverage therein can be regarded as bait for a few extra sales. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

on second thought

Hmmm... I am taking a second look at the original text of the section in question. And I have an alternative suggestion to fixing it. What about:

Organizations that meet the following standards are more likely to be notable than those that do not:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources.

This would then be followed by a repetition of the criteria for establishing notability... such as:

"To establish that a non-profit organization is notable, it must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

What I am getting at here is that I think the section is intended to be a broad statement as to the probability of notability, and not a narrow criteria that "proves" notability if met. Confusion on that point may be what caused the disconnect between Sionik and the rest of us. Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Me again. Yes, what you are saying begins to make sense to me. What now troubles me is that the WP:NONPROFIT criteria is described as an alternate criteria, not additional criteria. If new consensus is that organisations need to meet additional criteria then that should be made clear in the section heading. The lead paragraph currently says quite clearly that organisations need to meet either the primary criteria or the alternate criteria or WP:GNG, not all three. Sionk (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in discussions about statements like this - "such and such is likely to be notable" - and the consensus was that such statements are pretty much worthless. It leaves people wondering - so does that mean it's notable, or not? In any case, the second statement - about multiple third party independent reliable sources - is not a matter of "likely", it constitutes notability and is required for notability. And this proposed wording brings back the "verified" problem. Was your intention to try to deal with the first statement, the "national or international in scope" problem? How about something like "In additional to having multiple independent reliable sources, the scope of the nonprofit should be national or international or equivalent"? Or "a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities are national or international in scope"? --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about a wording like this?

A nonprofit organization is usually considered notable if it meets the following standards:

1. It has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Information about the organization and its activities should be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
2. In addition to the above criterion, a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities are national or international in scope. An organization with purely local impact is generally not considered notable unless it has a national or international reputation.

--MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I like it... The 'its' should be 'theys' for grammatical consistency, though. Or make 'Nonprofit organizations' into 'A non-profit...'. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it, because the bar has been raised higher for non-commercial organisations than commercial ones. Commercial organisations only need to be regionally or nationally known to pass WP:NCORP. You are suggesting that non-profit organisations have to be (at least) nationally known. I would have thought (on the basis of past practise) notoriety at regional level would be adequate. Sionk (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A nitpick - notoriety applies to people like Al Capone, and it is not a direct equivalent to notability or fame. It is misused by the hiphop fraternity (if such an entity exists - they all seem to appear on each other's tapes but exspend much effort dissing each other) where an absolute minimum requirement for notability would be a ticket for littering. Mind you, well referenced notoriety is as much a guarantee of an article as is true fame. We just have to be more careful of the lawyers... Peridon (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've unfrozen, I would suggest Melanie consider the regional aspect, although she is not excluding it. It IS more likely that a national organisation will be notable than a local one - be it business or charity. But a regional one can make it - and a big business fail. I remember one large profitable company - deleted for lack of notability. Millions ate their products, but had never heard of then because 100% of their output carried other people's brands. Supermarket own-brands. Only the purchasing depts, raw material suppliers, employees, and of course the Infernal Revenue, had heard of them. No-one was likely to look them up. There are thousands of charities in the UK - some of which administer funds left for poor relief (which now have resources enough to distribute one bread roll per annum to about thirty people). Others are plain weird. (It wasn't a weird one, but I used to chair a registered charity which was barely notable even in local terms - we used to have to fight to get into the local rag and they normally publish anything local.) Peridon (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this since the question was posted, and I'm not sure what the right answer is. I believe (and this was originally written before my time) that the notion generally wasn't "non-profits", but large, multi-chapter fraternal organizations. See this precursor.

My other thought is that WP:WHYN applies to all articles regardless of subject, and should be sufficient to deal with the instant case. We don't require substantial coverage just for the fun of it or to annoy good-faith editors. We truly need substantial coverage in independent sources, because without it, we cannot comply with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the "regional" idea too - in fact I was arguing for it above - but I was trying with this rewording to keep the same criteria as before. If we are good with adding "regional" we could do something simple like this:

# In addition to the above criterion, a nonprofit group is more likely to be found notable if its activities or reputation are at least regional in scope, rather than purely local.

As for the "local chapter of a fraternal organization" issue, that is pretty well dealt with already, in the section "Local units of larger organizations". It's easy to mock local charities that serve teeny-weeny constituencies, but let's not go there. What we are trying to exclude here is organizations whose good works are significant and respectable but purely local, like the Friends of Famosa Slough or the San Diego River Conservancy. Lots of coverage, but all local. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point... There are a few organizations that are purely local in scope of activity which are considered notable (although not many)... and there are some organizations that are international in their scope yet not considered notable. Notability isn't really a function of what an organization does or where it does it... it's a function of how widely known the organization is. We determine that by looking at the extent of coverage. If the coverage is purely local in character, we can not claim that the organization is notable. If the coverage is national or international in character, then we can clearly claim that the organization is notable. The question is where to draw the line between the two extremes. I am not sure we can draw a definitive line here. It may be that the best we can do is be note that the wider the scope of coverage is, the more likely it will be that the organization will be considered notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the changes to WP:NONPROFIT have been reverted by another editor. Good. The original purpose of the question that started this discussion was to clarify the difference between WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT, not eliminate it. I'll continue to treat it as an alternate criteria which, if met, signifies notability. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That has not been the thrust of this discussion. Instead, this discussion seems to be about how to eliminate the (possible) ambiguity which you perceive, and to make it clear that GNG is not an alternative or an option, but a requirement. Hopefully we will decide on a wording for the main page which will make that clear.
BTW you originally welcomed my coming here for clarification, but now you seem to have decided that the clarification and discussion here is irrelevant, and that you will continue to insist on your interpretation which no one else seems to share. In fact, the editor who reverted Blueboar's change did it because they thought it was an unnecessary reduplication of the GNG criterion - not because they thought GNG didn't apply. Their edit summary was "no need to repeat word for word what is at the top of the page". --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I shouldn't be putting words into that editor's mouth. I have invited them here to explain what they meant by that reversion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Note It seems that the discussion above has shown that articles considered under WP:NONPROFIT must still adhere to WP:WHYN (and thus WP:GNG). Any additional thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not bothering to read through all of this. Just pointing out that it has long been established that the articles can meet the general notability guideliens OR the secondary guidelines, they don't have to meet both. The secondary ones exist to cover things that are notable that might not meet the GNG, such as winning notable awards or having for WP:ACADEMIC having their work cited by others. Dream Focus 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the question here. Is it your opinion that WP:NONPROFIT establishes a secondary guideline saying that the organization's existence and activities only have to be VERIFIED by secondary sources, rather than significant coverage provided? --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it'd be pointless to repeat the GNG there. If it meets the GNG then there is no need to bother with a secondary guideline. I believe that any organization should be considered notable if its activities get reasonable coverage, even if no one does a detailed interview or review about the organization itself. Dream Focus 03:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness I'm not banging my head against a brick wall. It began to feel like it. It is not an opinion that WP:NONPROFIT establishes a secondary guideline, in fact it says it in black and white. It is an alternative criteria for establishing notability. There are alternate criteria for many things on WP. Thye're not additional, they're alternative. Read almost any AfD debate and you will see that when articles meet alternative criteria they are (almost) always kept. Sionk (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In this context - what is your understanding of "reasonable coverage?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't just be mentioning they had a bake sale, or that they opened up a new chapter in town, or something minor of course. But mentioning that they fed 10,000 homeless people a year, or help thousands of runaway and exploited girls get home safely again, surely should count. Need to add in a bit about their accomplishments as well, not just their coverage. Dream Focus 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that international organizations can be a one guy collecting money and trying to get in the media in one nation to do minor amounts of work in another. And a local charity in a major city could be doing far more good than another charity spread out in different states. The scope of their activities should be considered, not how many locations they have. Dream Focus 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But whatever, they MUST back up these claims with RS, not just the word of the CEO or the official website, and not just one sentence mentions either. And that was the problem we started with - the one that gave rise to this question. Peridon (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems clear. There appears to be some agreement/consensus on that here. At minimum, all articles must pass WP:WHYN - the original article that led us here included. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CORP1E

I recently nominated an Corp article for AfD that was lacking in notability - Aside from Blogs and the Corporate homepage the only independent reliable sources that I could find were two mentions in the local newspaper (circulation around 12,000) which syndicates much of it's content from a larger regional newspaper (circulation around 90,000) whose editorial standards have been questioned at a national level. During the AfD however a (still small) number of regional news reports and specialist press reports about the demise of the company were put forward as evidence of notability - As I argued there (futilely as I was the only 'Delete vote) we have advice in WP:BLP and WP:BIO that explains why policies such as WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:WNPOV, WP:OR, etc and Guidelines such as WP:EVENT strongly emphasise we should not create articles about non-notable individuals who play a notable part in one event - I would like to add similar advice to WP:CORP probably adapted directly from WP:BLP1E that explains why these policies also strongly emphasise we should not create articles about non-notable companies/organisations who play a notable part in one event (or are the subject of that one event such as a closure) what does the community think? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree... WP:ONEEVENT should apply to organizations as well as individuals. If the only thing that a company/organization is known for is its involvement in a single event, it is more appropriate to mention the corporation/organization in the article on the event. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well, though using common sense that some events will highlight a company that never had an article before and/or may easily create new articles about that company in the future, if the event has significant repercussions across an area. A hypothetical example, the company that ran that cruise liner that capsized, Costa Crociere, may not have had an article before the event, but the event certainly highlighted the company and likely showed there's sources from the past to qualify for a full article (however, in reality, that company had an article since 2007). --MASEM (t) 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why routine restaurant reviews is included there with the rest.

Last June someone added in this bit [9] about "routine restaurant reviews". If a city has millions of people in its metropolitan area, wouldn't the reviews restaurants get count as notable? Not everyone gets a review. Aren't films considered notable if they get reviews in major newspapers? This doesn't fit with the rest. Its not just a press release from a politician, a sports team, or whatnot. A complete review should meet the "depth of coverage" requirement. Anyone object to me removing that bit? Dream Focus 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems misplaced. Simple notices, announcements and inclusion in lists are easy to see as routine, but a review? That requires an analytic judgement by a professional critic, so I can't see how it can be deemed routine. I have tagged it as requiring explanation. Diego (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason has to do with objections to reviews from local small town papers, more than those in major news outlets. Even an extensive write up of a local small town restaurant in a local paper is not enough to claim that the local restaurant is notable... while an extensive write up of the same local restaurant in the New York Times might be. This relates to something we have been discussing above... the extent of coverage... the broader the coverage (either through multiple sources covering a broad area or a single source with a broad coverage) the more notable the subject is. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I removed it. Local coverage problems from news of limited circulation is already covered in the section titled "Audience". Dream Focus 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal, the discussion is too short and does not have enough depth to just remove the section with only three brief comments. Further, I believe it should be kept, and am restoring the statement until a better consensus can be developed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all listed our specific reasons why it shouldn't be there. Why exactly do you wish it to be in the article? What purpose does it serve? Dream Focus 20:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant reviews clearly fall under WP:Routine - every restaurant is reviewed at sometime by local publications. They are pedestrian, everyday human interest things just like that found at the end of newscasts and such. It doesn't matter if it is the East Over Shoe Gazette or the New York Times, reviews are not signs of notability of an organization. Too often, contributors use restaurant reviews to claim an restaurant is notable without any other valid sources just because the name appeared in print. Reviews can be used to establish verifiability, and can be used in the article to confirm information in an article such as reception and related types of data. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not every restaurant gets reviewed. In a small town, perhaps, but not in a metropolitan area with millions of people in it. Every film that gets to the mainstream theaters on the other hand, does get a review, no matter how awful it is, in every major newspaper about. Dream Focus 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes they do. It may be part of a "Local" or "Neighborhoods" section or be in the Sunday Magazine in the big regional paper and it may be awhile before it happens but almost every place that serves food in a major area will get a visit for the big regional paper. The difference between a small local paper and a big regional is the amount of work they can dedicate to the review. With the big regional papers the bigger, flashier place will get a bigger, flashier review posted on the front page of their lifestyles section while the smaller place may just get a quick few sentences buried deeper in the back of the section, but it will be there. Trust me, I have been working in the restaurant field for 30 years now, this is how these thing work. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that restaurant reviews clearly are WP:Routine coverage and don't help to establish notability at all. Mtking ^(edits) 11:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)