Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Need your thoughts on a number of drafts over at Talk:Uwajimaya#Notability_of_business_people_in_Uwajimaya. Editor has drafted biographies of family members in the business which is a local supermarket chain in Seattle. It's not Walton family AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• suggest merging into one family article or into the business article perhaps, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I see there's been some discussion of this at

I dunno, the number of fancy vegan restaurants can't be that high in the first place, and I'd guess these websites/magazines, whose job it is to churn out as many lists of all sorts of restaurants as they can year after year, tend to work off of each others' lists rather than being independently and objectively compiled (especially buzzfeed's...). Most of these blurbs are fairly short and just rattle off some interesting-sounding dishes. In this case I would hope there to be some sort of substantive sources on it, and the F&W article is pretty decent. But I don't think it's Wikipedia's role to duplicate these lists and assume notability on them alone, even with multiple. Reywas92^Talk 08:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92, not all of the restaurants on the various lists are necessarily upscale or even vegan -- there are multiple lists that include some midrange restaurants, vegetarian restaurants, even just plain ol' restaurants, period. And you might be surprised how many upscale vegetarian restaurants are on one or two of the lists I researched -- only one appears on all of them, IIRC -- but I take your point. --valereee (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

REywas92, you've got to go out to dinner more. You's be amazed by teh food at upscale vega places in LA, London, New York and Tel Aviv.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee I would expect a notable restaurant to have substantial coverage from its local media. This coupled with listicle entries might be enough to get them over the notability hump for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, yes, this restaurant does have significant local coverage. I didn't include it when I created because sometimes that seems to sort of muddy the notability waters -- purely local coverage generally doesn't prove notability for a restaurant by itself. Maybe I should go add that stuff, though, if it's generally considered helpful when added to the national note being taken of a place. --valereee (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: Adding a handful of "top restaurant" listings is OK as a way to establish notability, as long as there is SIGCOV too. But not all lists are created equal. Making a list in the local free weekly ≠ a top ten list in, say,
  Conde Nast Traveler.E.M.Gregory (talk
  ) 19:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  E.M.Gregory, absolutely agree, the only lists I looked at were for national or international publications. Some (F&W, T&L, USA Today) are stronger than others, but none of the lists I looked at were even just regional or state, much less local. I've since included a local list for purposes of expansion, but I wasn't looking to that one for notability. --valereee (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines explicitly for the notability of churches? I've heard the arguments that churches are notable simply because they meet the description of a

• WP:NCHURCH.E.M.Gregory (talk
  ) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• While it is obvious that we cannot keep any pages without
  WP:RS, it is also important to remember that the role individual churches have played in the lives of American communities and individuals is out of all proportion to the amount of SIGCOV they get (mostly of in the events column, St. Whosiwhatsis Parish holds it annual Easter egg roll this Sunday). After all, what is there to write about church in a handsome building where the members gather and open their hymnals every Sunday? And yet, anyone interested in, say, Nathan Pusey, Harvard's last church-going President - a fact regarded by historians of education as having a role in shaping the direction of Harvard and American higher ed more broadly links to All Saints Episcopal Church (Appleton, Wisconsin), where he pushed the congregation to move into the "low church" movement. Or say you were curious about Governor Bill Haslam, if you are, it is interesting to know that the pastor he chose to read the prayer at his inauguration was from a church Christ Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Tennessee) that is part of the conservative Presbyterian denomination, not the progressive one. Neither of these churches is sourced to the level that I would expect a local bakery to be it it had a page. But membership in a particular church can be a significant part of the biography of intellectuals and politicians. Therefore, individual churches are functional to the project, even when lightly sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk
  ) 00:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue I had was with reliable sources that mention a church in one sentence, but said absolutely nothing about the actual church. Ex: "famous person x attends church x" or "person x, who died tragically, was a devoted member of church x." I was under the impression that sources such as that, while reliable, are not considered legitimate to establish notability. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I seem to recall these exact arguments being used successfully in AfD discussions. There are a number of so called "megachurches" that I am familiar with that would probably meet this criteria, but I never bothered to create them because I assumed they would be deleted via AfD or rejected via AfC. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I check the deletion list on Christianity pretty regularly, and when churches appear, I join the discussion, often finding sources that establish notability. I do not remember seeing the sort argument you describe before the current AfD discussion on a church in which we have both participated. It is certainly not a common type of argument in AfD discussions about churches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I did some searching around and found this AfD, which was for an article that I seem to remember editing. Here this argument seems to have been used successfully. I'd like to know if this is different and if the argument was used improperly. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing a GA review of Nostrana (restaurant) at Talk:Nostrana (restaurant)/GA1 and I'm wondering about notability. This is an article created by a mega-experienced editor, Another Believer and I feel I must be just being stupid, but I was under the impression that local coverage, even in the most respected areawide newspapers, wasn't sufficient. That, for instance, multiple instances of significant coverage in the NYT wouldn't necessarily be enough to show notability of a NYC restaurant, that there would need to also be significant coverage that isn't local to the restaurant's area. Would someone be willing to take a look at the sourcing for the article? I'm hoping I'm just being wrongheaded here. --valereee (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to introduce bias here (I'm happy for Valereee to seek a third opinion), but I should note like I did in the GA review, The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. I would not limit this publication to local coverage. Thanks to other editors for taking a look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer, my apologies for not presenting that in my question -- I wasn't intending to leave out anything important! ETA: stipulated that the Oregonian is a major newspaper serving the PNW and absolutely reliable. --valereee (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, All good! Just wanted to let other editors know about this publication in particular, because sometimes people see "based in Portland" and assume the paper is local only. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer I certainly agree with you regarding the reliability and scope of The Oregonian but note that even regional newspapers can be considered LOCAL coverage. However, this factor would only come into play in a notability discussion which GA explicitly is NOT. As a RS I agree with you 100% that it can be used in a GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, my concern is that the instructions for GA say that if it has or needs tags, it's an immediate fail. --valereee (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, it does also say "can, but by no means must, be failed." So does that mean I can ignore this question? --valereee (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, What tag are you suggesting is needed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Valereee If you genuinely believe the topic is not notable I would suggest you pause the review and nominate it for deletion rather than considering a tag of the article. Speaking for myself, given what I know about Another Believer as an editor if he thinks a topic is notable I'd be inclined to trust his judgement and would just do a normal GA review. The tag line is not aimed at articles like this, in my opinion but rather ones with major substantial needs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to do ETA: er, just doing a normal GA review, I mean. --valereee (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Re the NYT... A lot depends on which section of the paper the coverage appears in. Coverage in the “metro” section will be locally oriented, and conveys less notability than coverage in another section. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We should have a notability criteria for political parties. After a spate of recent nominations of small and U.S.-state based parties, it seems clear to me that the existing standard is insufficient. The state of journalism state means that smaller parties and state-based affiliates often receive little in-depth coverage, despite recognition by state authorities and repeatedly contesting elections. This is not the fault of the party per-se, moreso of the lack of funding for journalism outside of the national level. This problem is obvious by looking at the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. The party has elected local officials, put its presidential ticket on the ballot since the early 1990s, and yet, few third party sources are available at this moment. I believe that ballot qualified parties should be considered notable if they receive sufficient sourcing to prove their existence and basic facts. Thoughts?--TM 10:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Existence is not notable. We need coverage in reliable independent sources in order to write an article and demonstrate notability. It may be a “great wrong” that sources don’t cover minor political parties, but Wikipedia isn’t the place to right great wrongs. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that we should have clearly defined notability criteria for parties. I think that a standard similar to
  WP:NPOLITICIAN (i.e. presume notability for a party that has representatives at a state/province or higher level of government) would work well, but am less certain about parties that only have local-level representation, such as TM's example of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  17:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Why does it say or ; rather than and? If ORGCRIT was designed to set a stronger emphasis to prevent gaming the system to insert promotional contents, but allows meeting the less stringent GNG to substitute meeting ORGCRIT, it cancels it out. Are we sure this isn't supposed to say and rather than or? the intention seems to be that

At WT:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#H-index, I have found myself expounding on how I like to use google scholar to find an H-index to decide on whether to WP:CSD#G11 a woeful PROF-failing self promoting recent PhD graduate. Inviting criticism... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple

secondary sources which are independent

of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In

There is no such carve out.

(I do think that we should be less strict on companies that have produced a number of individually-notable creative products (that is, those products have a clearly notable standalone page), where the number products has to start at at least 5 if not higher. Such pages, while thin on details, would as least serve as a means to link from one creative product to the make back to the other products they have made. However, that's not the case in the OP's question ). --Masem (t) 18:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Carve-out applies - first of all, we are not talking about "manufacturing companies" - we are talking about game publishers (other than video games). These companies are in the business of creating and licensing intellectual properties and designing and publishing games, books and related products.
• Secondly, the publisher in question, Dream Pod 9, has published dozens and dozens of books (along with other products); these publications have received RS reviews, meet NBOOK and, as noted in the AfD, the key intellectual properties created (such as the Silhouette Core rules system) are IP created by the publishing company and cannot be individually attributed among the small number of designers and authors involved. The carve-out for "co-authors and inventors" applies quite literally to this case as well as other similar ones. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• The exclusionary anguage of the current draft of NORG, which I am referring to as a "carve-out", concludes the first section of NORG and reads as follows: "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)." Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"we are talking about game publishers", "the publisher in question ... has published dozens and dozens of books" So do you believe IGI Global should not have been deleted as they have published thousands and thousands of books? Or does the "carve out" only apply to fantasy publishers and not other genres of publishers such as western adventure, romance, or non-fiction? Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Chetsford, if you have read any of the reliable sources on game publishing, you will understand that authorship, editorship, and line development are organized differently in this field than in fiction or non-fiction publishing. This is not a matter of genre, but of category: it is as if you were trying to apply to a partnership of research chemists the criteria applicable to paint manufacturers. In game publishing, the publisher typically functions as a design studio or research lab and it is within the publisher that the intellectual properties are produced. This is not the case with fiction or nonfiction, in general.

  Also, Chetsford, perhaps your memory is slipping, but in fact you have seen this argument before, notably in this diff. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  We need to distinguish from publishers and creators at a minimum. There might be some reason to focus on creators/developers of a work because that is where the hard creative work came from. Whereas publishers have little creative input (they might proofread/offer suggestions, but they're not doing the hard work). To a point, that becomes like a storefront, and we are not a catalog. That said, we do want to make sure that in some fields a publisher is also the creative force behind what is published. IGI Global does not at all appear to be in that ballpark. --Masem (t) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  The problem, Masem, is that in the field of RPGs and other tabletop games, the publisher typically plays a different role than in other domains. The founders of all major 20th-century RPG publishers, such as TSR, Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, Atlas Games, Pinnacle and, yes, Dream Pod 9, were game designers, writers, and developers. In most of these cases, founders and then line developers for the respective games played the key role in the direction, success and failure of the game lines, more so than individual credited authors. Therefore, in this context, it makes the most sense to apply CREATIVE to the group responsible for the artistic creation rather than to one individual author as in the case of, e.g., fiction and nonfiction. If you would like to see this process described, Designers & Dragons is the standard text. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, you're right that Dream Pod 9 fits into the "publisher is actually the developer" area. That said, my point before is that we do NOT have a creative carve out as suggested. I would argue for keeping a company which has several lines of notable creative products, but that's not the case with Dream Pod 9 - of their four major products, two fail notability (from what sources are given), one barely even gets their, and the other may be notable but its resting on too many primary sources. That fails my hypothetically allowance test for a company standalone. Not saying there's other reasons to keep Dream Pod 9, but their creative works do no come close to even thinking about a creative carve out. --Masem (t) 19:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  The current state of the game line articles is not a factor in Notability for either the game lines or the publisher. There are literally scores of RS reviews of the various publications in these and other lines, in addition to the chapter in Designers & Dragons and the scholarly sources treating the die mechanics of the Silhouette system. If you accept notability of creative products as the basis of a game publisher's notability, there is no question that Dream Pod 9 meets that threshold, though the most influential reviews were in the dead tree era when they were at their peak. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  "the most influential reviews were in the dead tree era" It's fine to cite offline sources but they do, in fact, need to be cited for verification. Notability is established through demonstration, not assertion. Per

  WP:V threshold. Thanks! Chetsford (talk

  ) 19:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  True, but the GNG is already met by 'Designers & Dragons' plus the RS review I cited here, which goes beyond the individual publication to discuss Dream Pod 9 and its Silhouette Core rules in some detail. I would never support article status for a topic that does not meet the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think your definition of

  WP:SIGCOV for purposes of the GNG (one mention in a book by "Evil Hat Productions" and on something called "thealexandrian.net") and mine must be a little different. But, I digress, as the purpose of this thread is not to rehash any one specific AfD but to determine whether a thing called "creative carve out" exists and that question has been answered to my satisfaction. Chetsford (talk

  ) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Lest you forget, Chetsford, your own RSN notice revealed Designers & Dragons to be RS in this domain. And three of five participants here agree on either a "carve-out" or similarly relaxed criteria for ORGS producing creative works, with the other two showing no sign of understanding NOTINHERITED and CREATIVE correctly. So shouldn't we give it a few more hours before jumping to (incompatible) conclusions? Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"three of five participants here agree on either a "carve-out" or similarly relaxed criteria" I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the proper way to interpret "There are no carve outs", "No carve out", "Nope - no carve out" and "there is no such carve out" but I do appreciate the creativity and passion you bring to this topic. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll stick to "I do think that we should be less strict on companies that have produced a number of individually-notable creative products" (Masem), "agree with Masem's thought" (Barkeep49) and your "That seems like a good idea." That actually makes four of us supporting distinct criteria for groups of creators.

Also, when I provide a diff I would appreciate if you could read the entire thing (when it's as concise as that one was, at least). I provided the qualifications of the reviewer, so there was no need for you to read the entrails of the web address ("something called 'thealexandrian.net'"). I provided all the relevant information and the direct link, as well, so as not to force you to look for yourself, which I know you resent. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Nope - no carve out. A parent may have several notable children... that does not make the parent notable. A company may make several notable products, that does not make the company notable. An author may write several notable books, that does not make the author notable. Notability is not inherited. What would make the company notable is significant coverage of the company itself. Now, there is a strong likelihood that a gaming company that has produced multiple notable games will have the necessary coverage... but it is NOT automatic. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Blueboar, yours is a very common misreading of NOTINHERITED. NCREATIVE makes it quite clear: while authorship will not make otherwise non-notable BOOKS notable, authoring books with RS reviews does indeed grant notability to authors (which is parallel to the case here). NOTINHERITED does not apply to creative works and their creators in both directions, but only in one. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Read the entire guideline... it does NOT say an author with notable books IS notable... it says he/she is LIKELY to be notable. Huge distinction. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we are talking about presumptive rather than actual notability. The GNG must also be met - there is no "carve-out" from the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• No carve out but agree with Masem's thought that a List of notable products made by a non-notable company could be an appropriate article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks, all. Based on the responses, it sounds like there's agreement that a thing called "creative carve-out" doesn't exist for corporations. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Chetsford (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the first hour was undoubtedly quite conclusive. Not. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are no "carve outs". Reliable sources tell us what is notable (or not) by extensively noting it (or not). We either have enough source material to write a full article, or we, well, don't. Notability is not inherited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, that is not the relationship between authors and works described in

  WP:NORG applies to small groups engaged in creation and invention. Newimpartial (talk

  ) 20:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I looked through the linked AfD before commenting, but it appeared to me that even those arguing "keep" mostly acknowledged that it didn't meet the GNG (which the closer should've taken into account; those are delete arguments regardless of the bolded text at the front of them). They discussed some mentions, but no number of mentions or name drops can meet GNG. And they are indeed organizations, so of course any organization criteria apply to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  So is the exclusion at the top of NORG a dead letter for you, then? Also, I don't think anyone conceded that the GNG was not met: there is a whole book chapter about the company, and I recently gave an example of a RS that gives a multi-paragraph treatment of Dream Pod 9 and its core rules system, within a product review. That is not a trivial mention, and is an example of the many available sources I described in my !vote at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  "I recently gave an example of a RS that gives a multi-paragraph treatment of Dream Pod 9" - Newimpartial, I believe you may have been advised this previously on a different topic but, if not, then I apologize. However, "thealexandrian.net" is only a RS under

  WP:SPS if it can be demonstrated by other RS that Justin Alexander is, indeed, a subject matter expert. Simply declaring him to be a SME is insufficient. You would need to cite the Wall Street Journal or MSNBC or so forth saying "Justin Alexander is an expert on fantasy roleplay". A WP editor can't just assert "he's an expert" and then declare his blog to be a RS. Anyway, I apologize in advance if that comes across as repetitious. Chetsford (talk

  ) 20:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  His multiple publications in Pyramid, Gaming Outpost and Games Unplugged make him a reliable source. <Sniff> I thought you understood. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  WP is not an HR department. We don't evaluate credentials to determine if someone is a SME. We go by what RS say. Chetsford (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  An interesting proposition, Chetsford, but not policy.

  WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". That, not subjective reputation, is the policy-compliant criterion, and it is met in this case. Pedhaps you would like to strike your erroneous comment? Newimpartial (talk

  ) 22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Correct. An (a) established expert, (b) whose work has been published. Not one or the other. In any case, this now seems to be going nowhere fast so I'll have to bow out. Thanks for your input. Chetsford (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• No general "carve out" I agree with Seraphimblade that in general we should be applying WP:ORG criteria to game publishers regardless of the level of creativity their work requires. WP:CREATIVE is part of the WP:PEOPLE guideline and therefore does not categorically apply. I tend to look at the WP:ORG note regarding "small groups of closely related people" requiring at the minimum some visibility of the members in order to treat them as surrogate individuals. To me, a design firm that chooses to brand itself as a corporation should be treated like a corporation rather than a small creative team of related individuals, and all evidence I can find indicates that Dream Pod 9 presents itself in exactly that fashion; I can't even find an "About Us" link on their website. I do agree with Masem that there is some gray area here and I would entertain case-by-case exceptions to this, but I would fall short of endorsing a general rule. CThomas³ (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
• No carve out – per the reasoning offered by other editors above. I read that sentence as meaning that a group of people should not be treated like an organization–not that an organization should be treated as a group of people if it is made up of a small number of creative professionals. An actual, legal corporation is NCORP, all the way, even if its product involves creativity and its owners are few. For example, The Beatles are covered by NBIO, not NCORP; but the record company that publishes Beatles records would be NCORP, not NBIO (even if it's owned by the members of The Beatles). I also agree with Masem's point that a
  WP:NLIST even if Acme weren't notable under NCORP. – Levivich
  01:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• No Carve out - Don't be silly. Every company thinks they're creative, but only some companies are notable. Games companies are not more notable simply because their product is also an artistic work. However, I would say that what we're seeing here is a naturally response to the heavy-handed approach taken towards ORGs on wiki under
  WP:CORP where it seems almost likely the only company that is notable is one that has negative news out there about it with everything else being dismissed as COI/PR. FOARP (talk
  ) 15:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

One particular editor whom I believe to be a marketing or public relations professional has been adding local restaurants, dive bars, clubs in the Portland, Oregon area in mass. We're going back and forth in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Elephants_Delicatessen

One example is a local business called Elephant's Delicatessen. I would say it's one of the more notable ones within the businesses he's added but they all go along the similar path. Local walk-in customer venues of only general interest to those visiting or living in the area. This one has plenty of routine and trivial coverage in local papers and some in the regional paper, but arguably they're relatively routine coverage of mainly local interest and do not satisfy the notability requirements to add stand-alone articles here. I would like to get some input if anyone could chime in.

The editor named these sources:

• https://pdx.eater.com/2014/10/22/7039395/flying-elephants-deli-now-open-near-tilikum-crossing
• https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/real-estate-daily/2014/07/ohsu-research-mecca-gets-a-coffee-shop-and-deli.html
• https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2012/07/elephants_in_the_park_grill_op.html
• https://1859oregonmagazine.com/guidebook/elephants-deli-flying-kruse-way/
• https://www.portlandoregon.gov/sustainabilityatwork/article/458782
• https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4689-elephants-on-parade.html
• https://www.oregonlive.com/aloha/2013/08/portlands_elephants_delicatess.html
• https://www.zagat.com/r/elephants-delicatessen-portland
• https://www.oregonlive.com/dining/2012/07/elephants_in_the_park_grill_op.html
• https://books.google.com/books?id=afhADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT305&lpg=PT305&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
• https://pamplinmedia.com/scc/124-business/157812-elephants-deli-opens-on-corbett
• https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2001/03/26/smallb1.html
• https://books.google.com/books?id=ijt8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
• https://expo.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/erry-2018/08/476dcee2bc9941/17-things-to-do-during-a-12hou.html

Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Retracting publicly stated opinion that I shared when I was not aware of recommendation against remarking such. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, You are welcome to invite others to review the draft talk page, but you are introducing bias by falsely accusing me of being paid to create this entry and others you've nominated for deletion recently. You're invitation is not neutral, and many Wikipedia editors know me both on- and off-wiki. You're not helping yourself by introducing me in this way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RSN. Discussion over whether that topic in particular is notable is already happening on draft talk page, and there's no emergency so long as it's in draftspace. If it's moved to mainspace, you can nominate it for deletion and make your case there. The question of whether a set of sources makes a particular topic notable is standard fare for AfD. It's true that a page about a company should not exist in mainspace if its only source is the company website, but we're past that. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 19:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:N in entries about businesses that are primarily of just local interest. This isn't just for this article but for bettering of the encyclopedia going forward. I believe Noticeboard/N would have been the perfect place, but it is no longer active. Graywalls (talk

) 02:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Our encyclopedia relies to an extent on the willingness of people to share their knowledge. People who live in a particular city tend to know what restaurants are notable within the city, at least. Portland is also pretty major as inhabited localities go. bd2412 T 03:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

But that argument would apply across the board, so that one could argue that in Tinytown USA, Joe's Diner is pretty notable there, but nowhere else. It's why

WP:AUD is key here. --Masem (t

) 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you if we were talking about Google Local Guides. But "local guide" is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT. I have just read this article. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation. This might explain the pattern of a handful of user doing all the editing with controversy that are seen as "valuable contribution" by supporters and littering by opponentsGraywalls (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why we have the

WP:NORG. If these Portland establishments are notable outside of just Portland great let's include them - as noted Portland is written enough about that it's likely several bars/restaurants meet this criteria. If it's really just a local thing well then that isn't what Wikipedia does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk

) 16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:I'm getting the impression that NORG is like GNG but with higher standards to minimize marketing and public relations professionals from exploiting and twisting things around in favor of inclusion to suite their desired outcomes. Am I on the right track? Putting things in a third person view, I don't really care to see articles about eateries and bars in Salk Lake City that is only of interest for someone who lives or visits there. There are travel related sites and wikis that are outside of Wikipedia for those type of things. However, if that place is written about it in the Reporter-Herald, it still wouldn't perk my interest. How does Wikipedia community see it? Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls I would indeed suggest that NORG is like GNG but with strictly applied standards to prevent Wikipedia being used as an advertising platform. This observation is based of my experience in discussions like these but also at Articles for Deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, you're the one who asked what I thought of it. I'd like to make the experience more productive than simply deciding what you and I can come to a term as it applies to that specific article. On your second point, Is there a certain rule that discourage me from briefly sharing my opinion that I believe you're a marketing or a public relations professional? Accuse is a strong word, but since you brought up "paid", you're welcome to clarify if "individuals and organizations collaborate with Wikipedia in mutually beneficial ways" means if you receive consideration to make edits to Wikipedia or to "work with" others, on matters relating to contents getting placed on Wikipedia for consideration. Totally up to you. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, which is the correct venue for discussion about a specific editor, also has further information about how such discussions must happen on wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk

) 17:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming he's getting paid for this.. for the record. Graywalls (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, Of course you're welcome to accuse me of being a marketing professional, but that doesn't mean you're right. I don't really feel a strong need to explain myself to you, but if you insist, you should know I help facilitate workshops, edit-a-thons, and education program collaborations with many local organizations. You can see them listed at User:Another Believer/WikiCV, which I assume you already know since you've quoted the page. I've helped organize events at the Multnomah County Library, Portland Art Museum, Portland State University, Reed College, Washington State University Vancouver, Oregon State University, the University of Oregon, Publishing Resource Center, Vancouver Community Library, Portland Institute for Contemporary Art, Yale Union, Oregon Jewish Museum, Pacific Northwest College of Art, etc. My point is I enjoy working with organizations, and this is not wrong. Of all these collaborations, I've maybe been paid $200 in stipends for my time by PNCA, payments which have been documented in WMF grant reports. I don't do these events for the money, but if an organizer offers $100 for 6 hours of my time, I won't say no. You seem to take a skeptical approach about this, but I am very comfortable with and proud of my many contributions to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement in general. Back to the topic of sourcing... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

and just to notate it, I believed the user was a PR professional after having read the discussion HERE. I wasn't aware at the time, its discouraged to state my opinion about such, so I retract my publicly stated opinion. Graywalls (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing here is yet another example of the heavy-handed application of

WP:CORP and the almost automatic assumption that anyone writing about companies who is not writing something negative must necessarily be a COI editor or PR profession doing paid editing. Let's assume good faith people. FOARP (talk

) 15:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In an AfD I created, I've experienced an article about a website being retitled to software by an editor "so it meets the requirements for that." referring to the software notability essay. I believe this was a result of confusion about which notability guidelines apply. Graywalls (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Software is a creative work of art. A subset of those works may be sold. A subset of those may be sold multiple times and have associated marketing and branding that makes them a product. Hence I think any general advice on software notability needs to take into account the software superset that is not "product". If a work of software is accepted as being a "product", then it seems reasonable that

WP:PRODUCTS would be a way forward. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk

} 22:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

However, in general, software is a tool or a product intended to provide a function and it is rather uncommon or insignificant purpose of purpose that they're produced for creative/artistic purposes and I feel this page would be appropriate for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The table does not include a column for

No, because that would not work. The table in its current state requires at least two sources to pass all requirements.

WP:AUD in its current state works fine, because the audience of sources must still be considered. Dwaro (talk

) 19:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Currently we have large number of significant businesses missing and a long discussion at the top of this page about Elephants Delicatessen which is a small Deli chain in Portland Oregon. First I have nothing against Elephants Delicatessen but it relies on an Editor putting in a lot of work to get this page into wikipedia and defend it against AFD, which is great and kudos to the editor in question.

The point is that all listed companies are more significant than Elephants Delicatessen and the 1,000's of other small companies that have made it into Wikipedia through the random process of having an interested editor and getting past AfD. Listed is a simple clear criteria for inclusion and now that we have almost every school, village, and a number of ex villages, listed companies clearly have more significance than other article subjects that are now agreed as notable by default.

When a company is listed on a stock exchange there is always a legally verified document that sets out what the company does along with the ownership and management. This is signed off by two sets of lawyers the companies and the brokers and provides a good reliable source on every listed company. If it is false then there is generally a law suit and plenty of additional reliable sources as to why the law suit took place and what the company did or did not do. RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• If you are proposing that companies be deemed “inherently notable“ if they are listed on an exchange, I would oppose. If you are saying that a listed company is VERY LIKELY to have enough coverage to be deemed notable... and so we should be hesitant to delete and should seriously check for sources before we nominate, I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Blueboar. Unfortunately the pitch has been very muddied by promotional articles by the companies themselves or undeclared paid editors often in editing rings. This has resulted in a reaction by Wikipedia editors that companies articles are treated with great suspicion and scepticism, which is sometimes unfair, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The reason I propose the change is that because of the amount of spam/promotion/myCompanyIsAGreatFirstArticle - Everyone goes > stub company article > delete. The current policy is as Blueboar highlighted a listed company is VERY LIKELY to have the coverage, but unless it has been researched and added to the article a listed company will often get deleted even though it is Notable. e.g. I created a stub for a listed company with some of the largest windfarms in the world which was proposed for deletion and deleted by experienced editors. I had to spend significant time improving the article to get it through article creation. This means that in practice that unless someone points out in an AFD discussion that it is listed it will be deleted whilst being worked on and even if it is pointed out it may still get deleted since a number of editors once they have said delete have difficulty changing their minds.
    • A clear “inherently notable“ policy would ensure that there were entries for the companies that could be built upon as reliable sources published information on the companies. The articles themselves would have the usual challenges of stopping the companies PR company/staff from trying to shamelessly promote the company, but that is part of the day to day grind of patrolling edits. RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • meh... If article writers start by compiling sources, and then write articles based upon (and citing) those sources, the resulting articles are unlikely to be nominated for deletion. No topic is inherently notable. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • then... If deletionista had to prove 'due diligence' in the AfD proposal, maybe listing the sources they have checked we may approach a level playing field. This current approach is encouraging the proliferation of trivia.ClemRutter (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Theire is a discussion presently at

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priashevshchina. DBigXrayᗙ 06:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I see on the Help Desk and the Teahouse that people given advice are often told something that I interpret as meaning that if they only provide general information about the company, that is promotion.

I come to Wikipedia for general information about companies. People are advised to use their web site for this information but what many companies do on their own web sites is promotional gibberish that has nothing to do with what I am looking for.

Sometimes (but not lately) I create articles about the companies I am looking for after I have to go in search of the real information. I may not be in agreement with the community on what makes a company notable but if I want to research the company and not have to go all over the place to do it, it seems notable enough to me.

I don't know if this is in the wrong place, but I just had to say it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the advice that you heard, but I'm guess that they may have meant that if an article contains only general routine information, it's more likely that that article was generated with promotional intent, including by paid editing. The kind of company that would derive commercial benefit from merely having an article in Wikipedia is probably one that is short on or borderline on wp:notability, and short on in-depth coverage by independent secondary wp:RS's. And so they have less in-depth sourced material to write, and, if paid editing, may not have the skill or money in the budget to develop such material in the article. The editor is going to avoid blatant promotional material which puts a red flag on the article. And so with those two things reduced, you end up with articles consisting of routine info. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

North, the generous assumptions you're making do your character credit. However, in practice, for some editors, "promotional" seems to mean "not an attack page", especially if the company is the first/biggest/only company in their field. We seriously have had editors claim that it's promotionalism and advertising to say that Company X is the biggest manufacturer of something in a given location, even if every known source agrees and no source disagrees.

In other cases, it's a matter of personal style. I've seen editors seriously claim that it's promotional to write that a multinational corporation is "operating in more than 25 countries", whereas writing that it is "operating in 28 countries as of <date>" is not. That draft was declined for promotionalism, and that phrase was given as an example of the promotionalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: saying the company is biggest/oldest/first/only to do X in Y can be very much promotional. It depends on how narrow and specific you get with X and Y. Every company can narrow down the category so it can claim to be the biggest/oldest/first/only to make itself seem important. Example: "first manufacturer of computer chips in Egypt" is not promotional, but "first bakery in <a town of 1,000 people> to offer gluten-free cookies" is promotional. It's a telltale sign of promo/COI article based on how narrow and ridiculous these biggest/oldest/first/only claims are. Renata (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you wanted to write that a business was the biggest employer on the northeast corner of a single street intersection, it would be

WP:UNDUE and silly. In the example I mention, it was the biggest manufacturer of a common household product in the United States, which is hardly an example of promotionalism. (Their primary claim to notability is the number of times they've been sued over employment practices. They were pushing the envelope on Gig workers when Uber's founders were toddlers.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing AfC articles on companies is a bastard at the best of times, but reviewers (and editors more broadly) going overboard like this is a real menace that does untold harm to our business coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not promotional to cite a referenced claim for some company being the biggest or the first or such. It is, however, not a sufficient claim of notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks. I wasn't trying to be nice  :-) But maybe I misunderstood the situation. If what they intended was to say was that people are being overly stringent on routine info, then my answer was a misfire. I was more thinking that someone might have said that articles created for promotional reasons often contain only basic info, which is something I'm seeing at new page review/curation and I was explaining what might lead to that. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The essay

WP:G11. At the other extreme, there are minor issues that can be addressed by Wikipedia:New pages patrol once accepted into mainspace. In the middle ground, according to the quick fail criteria in the reviewing instructions only blatant advertising should be a decline. However in practice, most reviewers take a hard line on promo, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps we need some worked examples as to what is and isn't acceptable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk

) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that most editors don't know what "blatant advertising" means, because they see so little of it. We used to get articles that said things like "Buy today at www.example.com!" That's blatant advertising. "Widgets Inc. is one of the biggest sellers of widgets in the world" is a claim to notability, not blatant advertising. We might prefer to re-write it as "Widgets Inc. is the third biggest seller of widgets in the world" (assuming that available sources get that specific, which they probably won't), but even that would be rejected as "promotionalism". And more to the point, in the context of this guideline, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and if the article would pass AFD, then it passes AFC even without being cleaned up first. That's AFC's prime rule: approve drafts that won't get deleted at AFD.

I looked at Wikipedia:Identifying PR, and I think it's pretty bad. You have to already know what an encyclopedia article is supposed to sound like before you can understand when words like generally (one of its alleged signs of promotionalism, currently appearing in 224,000+ articles), usually (246,000+ articles), or worldwide (146,000+ articles) are appropriate. Otherwise, you just have a ham-fisted checklist that can and will be abused by editors who don't know what they're talking about. I think this page, in its current form, is contributing to the problem rather than solving it. User:DGG, I know you started that page, so I'm pinging you about my concerns. Curb Safe's idea of worked examples might help. If worldwide is sometimes a problem, then maybe the page can be improved by adding examples of when it's good and when it's not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

to start, I don't see why this discussion is on this page, because this page is about notability. It's true that very weak notability and clear promotionalism tend to go together, because in such a case there may well be no reliable references, and even--except the advertising--nothing much to use for contents. But promotionalism is a separate issue, and the place to discuss the standard for g11 is WT:CSD; the place to discuss its use at AfD is the Deletion policy talk page, or AfD talk, and its use at AfC is at the AfC talk page.

But for the issue: The negative keywords are not supposed to be used as a sole justification for G11. It is rarely one word that makes an article promotional, but a combination of multiple elements that are characteristic of advertising, and a style of writing that is characteristic of press releases. The point of the list is to provide clues, not to provide directly the basis for decision. I am as quick as anyone to decline for G11 for promotionalism, and I think some here might be implying too quick, but I've never done it on the basis of a single word, not even "we". One reason why not is that promotionalism isn't necessarily the same as Conflict of Interest--many good faith editors without any COI write what amounts to advertising, because they try to copy what they see here-- I've learned to be slow in accusing someone of undeclared COI.

I can separately discuss each of the entries on the page--some are stronger than others. Just for an example or two mentioned.

"one of the biggest" by itself is not much of a claim to anything--it is a vague buzzword more characteristic of promotional than encyclopedic writing, but rather generally present-and usually to be removed in copyediting. "Third biggest" is something I have almost never to my memory seen supported by a reliable source; "World-wide " has uses (eg., WP has world-wide coverage) , but "known world wide" is never seen outside promotional writing--it isn't absolutely determinative, but it's a strong warning. "Best-seller" is another vague term,--it's an alert only: Amazon bestseller and NYTimes bestseller mean very different things. The most significant hints are not individual words, but phrases and organization. For example, "Before coming to company A, X worked at B", is much more likely to be promotional than "X worked at company B. After that, he worked at A." Some are considerably more complicated. Some are pictures, not words: a photo whose purported ownership does not match the article is a classic one; so in my opinion is a glamorous photograph of someone in a profession other than entertainment, or multiple photographs of the person with various dignitaries. :Accurate use of these requires integrating all the factors: we could design a probability weighting system for keywords, or train ORES. But what we actually do is make use of the human ability to evaluate complex situations. The word list is intended as hints for the humans.

The reason for emphasising the detection and removal of advertising is that the present intensity of advertising constitutes an emergency for WP. Exact distinctions about notability are relatively unimportant--we would be just as much an encyclopedia if we had more or fewer football players. We would not be an encyclopedia at all if our articles were indistinguishable from company or professional web pages--we would be no better than Google. (My current brief explanations are that promotional writing tells what the subject would like to tell the reader; encyclopedic writing is what the general public would expect to know from an encyclopedia. and that "Information addressed only to current or prospective customers, clients, investors, students, or employees is promotional")

So far from contributing to the problem, the use of these keywords is the first step toward the solution. They call attention to the problem, and then the article must be evaluated. But it is only the first step.

Deletion is not the basic form of cleanup, if only a few things need cleaning; but if the article is permeated by improper content, it's usually the only practical way unless someone is prepared to rewrite it entirely. (I sometimes have done this, if the subject is actually famous) And if something needs extensive cleanup from promotionalism, it's a fairly good sign it was written by an undeclared paid editor. Articles entered against the terms of use should be deleted. Further, there are many reasons for deletion besides lack of notability . Fundamentally, the reasons are at

WP:NOT, and any one of them is enough. NOT ADVOCACY, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The combination of weak notability and clear promotionalism isa particularly good reason. DGG ( talk

) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This is relevant here, because people are turning "well written" into "doesn't deserve an article". For example, "Before coming to company A, X worked at B" is decent writing, and that "X worked at company B. After that, he worked at A." is what User:SandyGeorgia, of FAC fame, rejects as "short, choppy sentences". And, honestly, I do not see how either of these are promotional. What exactly is being promoted in the "Before coming to company A..." sentence that isn't being equally promoted in the other formulation?

It reminds me a bit of User:MastCell's comment that whenever he finds a new editor with decent writing skills, it turns out to be a copyvio. Decent writing may be a valid marker of other problems (e.g., paid editing or copyvios), but we really shouldn't recommend or prefer bad writing in these contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just on this point, when a company or university hires an executive or distinguished professor, they think it very important to say from where the persuaded him to leave and join them. We at Soandso state, got prof. X, he had previous been a professor at Yale--with the implication, see how we're rising in the world! Encyclopedic articles for anyone in any field anywhere cover a career the way an encyclopedia does, in chronological order. If you doubt this, look at a few of the thousands of press releases cited as the main source for the first section of faculty or executive articles; it was from following up the references in the articles that I learned the style. (That doesn't mean the succession of positions should be written in a choppy or immature manner; I routinely copyedit such article by combining short sentences. My over-terse example was to illustrate the point). A better example would have been the times when they give the preceding position in the lede, and the previous ones way atthe bottom after everything else, without bothering with dates of title. "He also worked at various times for ..." . That's never encyclopedic writing.

And I continue to think that the totality of the criteria by which we delete articles is not relevant here. The criteria by which we keep or delete articles for problems with notability is what is relevant here. This is not the proper venue for problems with promotionalism, so i can think of no good reason why it is being discussed here. Even if you think its a general problem that we even consider promotionalism or over-consider it to the extent that it prevents us in deletion discussions, the place for that is deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)