Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Street Bird: Difference between revisions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers
152,750 edits
clarify
Extended confirmed users
24,228 edits
Line 193: Line 193:
*:::{{red|'''Here's an experiment:'''}} assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.) [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
*:::{{red|'''Here's an experiment:'''}} assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.) [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC) <!--VCB Huggums537-->
* '''Keep''': per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC) <!--VCB Huggums537-->
*:Above you say: {{tqq|Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test}}. This is incorrect. From [[WP:SIRS]]:{{blockquote|Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
*:# Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
*:# Be completely independent of the article subject.
*:# Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
*:# Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.}}
*:Moreover, under significance, the [[WP:PRODUCTREV]] guidance states: {{tq|The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications}}. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per {{U|Nythar}} there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:27, 24 May 2023

William Street Bird

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

William Street Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural Keep: This is a pointy nomination and I am being harassed by the nominator, an editor that has recently been trawling through my contributions: (1), (2), (3), (4)
I am not opposed to the idea that this venue arguably does not meet GNG guidelines (personally I view SIGCOV to have been met here, but I can see how it might be arguable either way); but this AfD nomination should come from another user Jack4576 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
No General list in which William Street Bird lacks SIGCOV. ✘ No
No The venue's website. Yes ✘ No
No Very short article with a very promotional tone. ✘ No
No William Street Bird is mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV. ✘ No
No The venue's website again. ✘ No
No Mentioned as the venue where a performance is to take place; lacks SIGCOV. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
IsolatedNation is not a reliable source, and none of the sources you added to the article's talk page demonstrate SIGCOV; they are instead very promotional. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IsolatedNation is a well-established modern perth culture magazine and is a reliable source. Your claim to the contrary is bizzare. Jack4576 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least several of the IsolatedNation references you provided are written as first-person narratives and are heavily opinionated. Also, this search of IsolatedNation in Wikipedia reveals only a single instance of the use of their website as a source. That article is William Street Bird. I'm not enthusiastic about accepting poorly written, heavily opinionated, PROMO articles as reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. To add to all this, those sources don't even significantly cover "the Bird." Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems
WP:SPS per their aboutpage:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure we can count Concrete Playground as having editorial oversight just because they list an "editorial director". Their "Editorial inquiries" says To pitch events, venues or news ideas, please send an email containing all relevant details and images to the editorial inbox in your city: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland and Wellington. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee (talk · contribs), you have raised a good point about a flaw in my reasoning, so I did some more research on Concrete Playground. I found Concrete Playground's editorial policyInternet Archive Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
  1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
  2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
  3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
  4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
  5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
  6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
  7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
  8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1). Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of these sources consists of
WP:ROUTINE coverage, published simply for the sake of publishing something. None of these prove that the Bird is notable, or that it stands out from other venues. If you search deeply enough, you could find a source for almost any building in existence; that is the reason why this large amount of sources does not automatically prove the subject passes the GNG. Therefore, the subject lacks SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't consider venue reviews to be routine coverage that falls under
WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. These reviews meet the three items listed under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews: "be significant", "be independent", and "be reliable". Cunard (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Newspapers and magazines usually have a set minimum number of articles they must publish in a given period of time. If a subject relies entirely on those types of articles, the subject does not
stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues). Most of the sources you listed above are too short and others lack SIGCOV, containing only a few sentences describing the Bird. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
No Not only is it short in length and poorly written, it also refers to the prices of different drinks offered at the venue. Doesn't try to prove the subject
stands out
. Looks like it was published just for the sake of publishing something. 		✘ No
No Not only is it a relatively short review, it also comes off as hyper-
ROUTINE
-ish. 		✘ No
No Extremely brief review that comes off as 100% ROUTINE. ✘ No
No Similarly, this is also a very brief review that reads like an advertisement. ✘ No
No General list of venues that contains only four sentences describing the Bird. ✘ No
No Same as the one above, except this one contains only three sentences describing the Bird. ✘ No
No Again, ROUTINE coverage of the venue, this time from Western Independent, a newspaper run by students at Curtin University, published for the sake of publishing something. ✘ No
No Story by a regional newspaper in Australia about the venue fighting "early closing time" that is 100% ROUTINE coverage. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Not slavishly following
WP:SIRS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per Cunard’s excellent analysis. like other recent AfD’s, this pushes the windows of ROUTINE and SIGCOV in a strongly deletionist direction. As for the comment that the Sunday Times is merely a “local Western Australian” newspaper: our notability guidelines require reliable sources, not big sources. Even it it did require big sources, I would think a Perth newspaper with 168,000 subscribers would apply even if merely Western Australian. See The Sunday Times (Western Australia). —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you are referring to by no means qualifies as "significant coverage." Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about the paper being local to WA, and the article being a Sunday supplement article is that this is not, therefore, significant coverage of a notable business but routine coverage of a local one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How in the hell is it "by no means" significant coverage in the source you just linked to? It isn't just a trivial mention. 100% of the coverage in that source is about the topic. How don't you figure that is significant and more than a mere mention? Huggums537 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    . I posted the entire article below if you want to examine it quickly. According to CORPDEPTH:

    The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

    If you examine the article, you'll find that it consists entirely of trivial information. In fact, that article contains almost no information suitable for an article, other than the fact that the venue exists. You can try that out if you're not sure: try writing a non-PROMO, non-trivial, non-brief, non-SYNTH article using that source alone. It's not possible. Therefore, it isn't possible to write an article longer than a very brief, incomplete stub using that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails SIGCOV per #Audience.) —Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test, only Wikipedia articles do. A single source doesn't have to be able to support a whole article all by itself to be used on Wikipedia, and you should give a severe tongue lashing to whomever planted that dumb idea into your head. Huggums537 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huggums537 What on earth are you talking about? Sources don't pass notability tests; they need to be acceptable according to the GNG so that the article subject passes the GNG. This is entirely about SIGCOV. A source isn't SIGCOV if it is entirely trivial coverage. Significant coverage != trivial coverage. Using a single SIGCOV source, one should be able to, according to policy, produce an article that isn't horrendously brief. Meaning there is enough information that is "significant" (e.g. relatively detailed history, current owners, neutral analysis of the venue's effects on people living there, etc.) Can you prove that The Sunday Times' article contains anything but trivial coverage? Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Venue reviews are not routine sources.
    stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.

    Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    And yours was a 217 word comment! Western Australia has a population of 2.8 million with the vast majority (2.1 million) living in Perth. The review is from the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section. This is routine coverage of a local business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Certain things that are average, normal, or
    WP:NCORP states that local coverage is insignificant coverage (meaning the subject is not notable enough for an international audience). Every source you've provided above either falls under local coverage or is simply too short to be worth counting towards SIGCOV. And like Sirfurboy said, the population of Western Australia mostly resides in Perth (79% I believe), so that newspaper you cited can be considered to be local coverage. SIGCOV sources would examine the Bird more thoroughly, and would prove the Bird is notable beyond its local scene. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not require companies to "stand out". The Sunday Times is a newspaper distributed throughout the state of Western Australia so meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source". Cunard (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the article you're referring to:

    IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.
    Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.
    The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.
    But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand.
    A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.
    The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint.
    The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.
    The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20).
    Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red.
    The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.
    THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î williamstreetbird.com Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2

    What part of this significantly describes the Bird? This is one of the most non-SIGCOV sources I have seen on Wikipedia. Where's the thorough analysis/description? All I see is an advertisement with no information pertaining to the venue's history. Besides the nonexistent SIGCOV, this article claims the Bird is an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an experiment: assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.) Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above you say: Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test. This is incorrect. From
    WP:SIRS
    :

    Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

    1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
    2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
    3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
    4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
    • Moreover, under significance, the
    WP:PRODUCTREV guidance states: The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per Nythar there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Street_Bird&oldid=1156737118"