Illegal conduct

WP:ILLCON says It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. However, CRIME is part of WP:BIO and hence explicitly applies only to people, not organisations. I agree that an organisations illegal or negligent activities may warrant an article but this needs rewording. I feel replacing "under different guidelines" with "under general notability" will get the job done. Replacing "illegal conduct" with "illegal, negligent, or immoral conduct" would also be an improvement. A company's anti-social activities can become notable without actually being illegal. SpinningSpark 13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with the exception of the "illegal" wording. Adding "negligent, or immoral conduct" would cause too much debate in an AfD as both are subjective. Illegal is pretty straight forward when a company is found guilty. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get it - basically why is a guideline for companies/organizations (NCORP) referring to a guideline for people (BIO). I think it is possible to interpret "victim" and "perpetrator" as a company/organization and understand how to apply the criteria to a non-person. But it would be preferable if it was stated plainly in relation to non-persons to avoid arguments over interpretation. HighKing++ 11:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of notability requisite for record labels, recording studios, art collectives and like

There is a similar and relevant discussion discussing WP:SNG vs WP:GNG that was started a few days before I started this discussion, which I was not aware of at the time. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Can_failing_SNG_while_meeting_GNG_be_sufficient_to_prevent_an_article_from_existing? Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternate set of criteria for WP:NBAND; however I believe record labels, recording studios are an organization or a company like any other group such as trade associations, unions, and what not. There are some people who expressed some of those WP:NCORP shouldn't apply to creative groups. While I am not aware of it, is there a broad Wikipedia community consensus from past discussions suggesting WP:MUSIC takes precedence over NCORP if the organization, companies and groups can be broadly categorized into musical category? I started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C/Z_Records and some editors have expressed dissent over the application of NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are structurally 3 angles/routes to look at here including two angles to look at NCORP:

  1. One is the usual SNG, which is arguably a way to at least temporarily bypass GNG. The question in this respect would be "is NCORP available for record labels?" I don't think that anyone would be seeking that so IMO this angle is somewhat moot.
  2. The second angle would "does the existence of NCORP preclude using the the WP:music "way in"? Since WP:Music criteria aren't very applicable to labels, this is probably also moot but IMHO my answer under #3 is also applicable.
  3. The third angle is relates to the fact that NCORP toughens the GNG "route in" via tougher sourcing and coverage requirements. IMO the reasoning for this unusual toughness is not usually applicable/intended for record labels and so this unusual toughening should not be applied to record labels. So this basically would (only) mean that the standard GNG route in is available.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My post was intended to be a structural observation/analysis of what the question actually is rather than listing proposals. The shorted/condensed version of it is: The question actually is: Is/shall the STANDARD version of GNG "route in" (be) available to record labels, recording studios, art collectives and like? (And "standard" means without the NCORP toughening) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG route is always available, if something passes GNG but fails all of the other notability standards its still notable. The way NCORP is applied in deletion discussion by some zealots is to be polite an "off-label" proscription, its not actually based in policy or guideline so changing them won't change it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be responding to my post as if I didn't have the word "STANDARD" in there in which case you are repeating the obvious as if I didn't know it. IMO the defacto situation is that STANDARD GNG is not available in clear-cut corporation scenarios. I think that it's pretty widely accepted that the tougher sourcing standards of NCORP are used when applying GNG. Hence my two posts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can the standard for a SNG apply to GNG? Thats nonsensical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also add that even GNG has the SNG section which specifically points to NCORP for corporations, so its become a rather tiresome argument about "zealots" that pops up every second week at AfD. For sure, consensus is that companies/organizations must meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SNG are separate sections of WP:N. Try again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG redirects to WP:N and I tend to make the mistake of saying GNG when I mean N. Thanks for pointing that out. HighKing++ 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG redirects to the GNG section of WP:N, not just to WP:N in general. You seem to tend to make a lot of mistakes when discussing notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) is the crucial part of WP:N which states that no SNG can supersede GNG. I can see why applying NCORP in some cases benefits us in making it easier to remove spam but claims that all corporation articles (and I've seen some very broad definitions of corporation on here) must pass WP:NCORP are incorrect. Garuda3 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely contradictory, so we can use NCORP for some (which you call SPAM) but disregard for anything else? Why bother having any SNGs at all if they're all "superceded" by GNG? It seems to me and others that some editors are OK with SNG's providing additional mechanisms/interpretation for inclusion but baulk at SNG's which provide mechanisms/interpretation for exclusion. HighKing++ 18:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be persistent confusion in one area. For corporations, while arguable, there does seem to be accepted practice of using the tougher sourcing standards of NCorp when applying GNG . I call that a "calibration" of GNG. I don't think that there is anybody saying that a corporation passing GNG also has to pass the SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given what HighKing just said about "a rather tiresome argument about "zealots" that pops up every second week at AfD" it should be clear that the community does not accept this practice. The community consensus is that "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Which isn't broken and covers 100% of the cases that have been brought up, it isn't broken... It doesn't need wannabe junkyard mechanics "calibrating" it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite. Yeah, it is tiresome. Every second week an editor pops up at an NCORP-related AfD and spouts something along the lines of "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG". As said above, NCORP provides clear guidelines and examples of specifically how the principles (which are summarised in GNG) are to be applied. Contrary to those editors' understanding, NCORP doesn't add extra criteria - but it is stricter, especially when it comes to what counts as in-depth/significant coverage and what is mean by "independent" content. HighKing++ 15:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SNG are applied separately, hence WP:N repeatedly saying "GNG or SNG" not "GNG and SNG." If it genuinely happens 20+ times a year maybe take the hint that you're the one causing the problem not those dozens of other editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic, if an SNG excludes a topic for a particular subject-specific reason but GNG doesn't, we simply ignore the SNG? Why would we bother with SNGs if that is the case? Also this viewpoint isn't shared with editors who close the AfDs and consensus is for the application of NCORP for organizations/companies. HighKing++ 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the same way that we "ignore" GNG when a topic passes a SNG but not GNG. Also note that we can delete a topic which passes GNG and/or SNG, you appear to be confusing passing GNG/SNG with being notable and that's just not the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, most SNGs provide additional mechanisms to include a topic. NCORP is stricter on interpretation of GNG. In reality, what this means is that if it fails NCORP, it has also failed GNG. I cannot recall a single instance where an NCORP-related article "passed" NCORP but "failed" GNG and then got deleted but I'd be interested to hear if that has happened. HighKing++ 11:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If NCORP is stricter don't you mean in reality if it fails GNG it also fails NCORP? You went backwards, it doesn't work the other way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The way I see it, the community has (usually slowly and painfully) formed a consensus in a topic specific area and agreed on guidelines (SNG) which may either include or exclude particular topics. What sometimes happens at AfD is that an editor will ignore or even refuse to acknowledge exclusions, saying it doesn't matter if it has failed NCORP once it passes GNG. The GNG/SNG either/or interpretation works perfectly fine for SNGs which contain *additional* mechanisms for topic inclusion but not for SNGs which contain exclusion criteria. HighKing++ 20:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its true that it doesn't matter if it has failed NCORP once it passes GNG. You appear to be confusing passing GNG/SNG with being notable which isn't true, something can pass one or both and the consensus be that it isn't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're going round in circles. NCORP provides detailed explanations on how to interpret GNG - which we acknowledge as being stricter. So how can something "pass" GNG but fail NCORP? By rejecting NCORP interpretaion (strict) and instead preferring GNG (loose)? And if NCORP effectively encompasses all of GNG (which it does and granted not all SNG do), why apply GNG at all? HighKing++ 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C and Mabeenot: Seeing Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-11-29/From_the_archives I see the two of you work quite a bit around advocacy edits and such. Wondering if you two had thoughts on this. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like (or even more so than) Wikipedia in general, WP:notability is a fuzzy ecosystem; it does not follow the concept that absolute rules can be logically discerned from the guidelines. While Horse Eye Back and HighKing are prima facia disagreeing, I think that they are both mostly right. The corporation part of NCorp is basically a slightly tougher (regarding nature of coverage) version of GNG which is what the fuzzy ecosystem tends to apply to for-profit corporations. I think that from a high level structural standpoint Horse Eye Back's statement is correct......either GNG or SNG is a "way in" and so meeting GNG is sufficient. IMO HighKing's statement of the actual defacto situation is accurate. IMO there are several ways to reconcile the two. One would be to say the the corporation portion of NCorp is GNG, albeit a slightly tougher version of it. Another way (and the way that I prefer to view it as) is that NCORP calibrates NG, and we are applying GNG. The reason I prefer that way of looking at it is that I believe that this concept is a key to tidying up various wp:notability challenges. In essence that the fuzzy ecosystem implements Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and that area-specific calibration of GNG would better implement the standard that the fuzzy ecosystem actually applies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on a lot of these discussions tends to be how both GNG and SNG provide a "way in" and I think NG were generally written with that in mind. Where disagreements arise is where an SNG throws up a barrier to exclude a "way in" and where this exclusion isn't specifically obvious in GNG. We need to be clearer about how to apply the guidelines in those circumstances. The either/or wording in WP:N effectively nullifies SNG exclusions. I agree with your suggested solution as one way to tackle this issue, effectively incorporate SNG as part of GNG. HighKing++ 12:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNG don't do that, they can only raise the barrier for attaining the specific SNG they don't raise the notability barrier itself (remember that the point of SNG is to include things that GNG fails to include, not to exclude things which GNG includes). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says "Independent of the subject" excludes works *produced* by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. NCORP expands on this and defines "Independent Content" which goes further, so that the *content* of works (that are not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it) must be attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Is this arguably excluding things which GNG includes? HighKing++ 17:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is going into more detail, but its not actually using a different standard of independent content than the rest of the site does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theory is great, practice isn't like this though. Back to my original comment. At NCORP-related AfD's, it happens a lot where an editor says something along the lines of "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG". Here we're all agreeing that NCORP is not different than GNG, that it neither adds not takes away any criteria, but provides explanations and interpretations pertaining to applying the criteria. It doesn't stop editors at AfD who reject the interpretation of NCORP (e.g. where the criteria for establishing notability excludes particular sources) from saying "Well, I don't care if it doesn't meet NCORP criteria, it meets GNG" and then relying solely on the mostly vague wording of GNG and the either/or wording. HighKing++ 18:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried saying "Yes GNG is met, but the article should still be deleted because X" and note that X can't be "it doesn't meet NCORP." Because that's the only real way forward if something does meet GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried that for the simple reason that it wouldn't make sense to say that - NCORP is (merely) a detailed guideline on how to interpret and apply GNG for companies/organizations. For me, they're the same thing really. For me, you can't pass GNG and fail NCORP. But you can for sure decide you don't like NCORP's interpretation and application of the applicable criteria and maintain a position of only looking and GNG and ignoring NCORP entirely, ignoring the detailed examples, etc. Unfortunately, that's the reality at a number of NCORP-related AfDs. HighKing++ 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you square your personal belief with the fact that the actual consensus language is "or" not "and"? Consensus is that you can pass GNG but fail a SNG and vice versa, it doesn't matter what it means "for me" you have to abide by consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP, on the other hand starts with GNG as its base, and explains how to meet the requirements of GNG (especially the need for independent, reliable sources that cover the topic in reasonable depth).
Perhaps NCORP stresses a strict interpretation of GNG (taking some of the “wiggle room” out of GNG)… but it is still based on passing GNG. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "wiggle room" to me is that you can still delete an article which passes GNG/SNG, it isn't some sort of automatic acceptance test. Passing GNG or a SNG is fine, but it just means that an article is *likely* to be notable it doesn't actually mean that it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on WP:NSCHOOL

We should consider all universities are notable as long as they can provide degrees (Associate degrees at lowest). In Chinese Wikipedia all universities are notable. Besides, the total number of universities around the world is very limited. John Smith Ri (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

After recently reading several explanations of WP:CORP at various help and talk pages, I've come up with a thought, it may be brilliant, ordinary, or trash (you decide), so here it is:

"If the only evidence of a company's existence comes from sources that are paid to care about its existence, the company is not notable."

I submit, for your consideration, that the phrase "sources that are paid to care" is a succinct catch-all description of primary sources, a concept which so many new editors seem to struggle with. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Source" for the purposes of establishing notability - does it mean we can aggregate multiple articles from the same "source"

A good question has popped up a couple of times recently at AfD. On the one hand, when I'm examining sources to see if they meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I've looked at each individual article. On the other hand, some editors are suggesting that articles by the same publisher or journalist can be aggregated together and form one super-article or source. WP:SOURCEDEF's definition of "source" captures three elements - the piece of work itself (singular), the creator and the publisher. I believe you cannot aggregate individual documents/articles/whatever and treat as a single document. Thoughts? HighKing++ 10:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By aggregating sources do you mean aggregating non-significant coverage until they somehow count as significant coverage or do you mean using multiple articles with significant coverage from the same source to establish notability? That first one is a hard no but the second can be legitimate in certain circumstances, especially in the natural sciences where you may only have publications about an obscure species from the same journal and/or team of researchers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP and The Oregonian

The Oregonian is published in Portland, Oregon’s largest city at 650K. Oregon has no other large cities; the next largest is Eugene at 175K, and although TO focusses primarily on Portland it is considered a statewide publication (or even regional as it does cover over the state line into the Vancouver area, a few minutes away and takes a general interest in the big stories in the Pacific Northwest, although that isn't atypical for large city newspapers.)

The problem

We have editors arguing that because TO is a "statewide" or "regional" publication, it's not local even for Portland, and every Portland business covered by it, even without coverage outside the area, is notable. This is the result:

Businesses
City/State Population Businesses
Portland 650,000 215
Los Angeles 3,800,000 200
Washington, DC 680,000 51

One particularly egregious area is restaurants, a category of business which is inherently local. Restaurants don't sell outside their area; people come to them, and when a restaurant is notable, sources outside the local area will cover it because they're telling their readers about a restaurant that is worth a drive or at least a stop. A recent example.

Restaurants
City/State Population Restaurants
Portland 650,000 154
Los Angeles 3,800,000 93
Washington, DC 680,000 45

The solution

For businesses in Portland, coverage in The Oregonian should be considered local coverage. I'm tempted to include other major newspapers that cover regionally or even nationally but have a local focus, but I'm not seeing this problem with the Los Angeles Times and WaPo, for instance. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning. It feels like you are jumping through hoops because you didn't like the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucier (restaurant) and @Liz didn't respond the way you wanted on her talk page.
All the tables you've shared above indicate is that there are editors passionate about writing articles on Portland topics. Garuda3 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lucier was certainly what finally spurred me to open a discussion, but the facts are pretty clear. LA and DC have plenty of editors. They just aren't misinterpreting NCORP. Please try to assume good faith; I'm here because this is concerning. (And Liz and I are still discussing.) Valereee (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the issue you take is not with notability its with one editor who has gone out of their way to make pages for the notable restaurants of Portland, as far as I can tell no editor has made a similar effort for LA or DC so the numbers you're presenting aren't terribly meaningful even if you seem to think that they are. I'd also take another look at your data for businesses, there actually appear to be many many more businesses listed for LA they're just in subcategories rather than listed individually so they don't appear at all in your overly simplistic (to the point of being misleading) numbers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's with notability. And it isn't actually a single editor; there are multiple editors who !vote keep at AfD regularly with the argument that TO is not local for Portland. And there are multiple subcats for Portland, too, such as Category:Defunct European restaurants in Portland, Oregon, which itself has subcats for defunct Italian and defunct French. Valereee (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said you had a problem with an editor who created the articles, you responded by talking about editors who vote at AFD not those who create articles. I criticized the fact that the "Businesses" chart was misleading and you responded with a comment about the "Restaurants" chart. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue with The Oregonian is it is not clear if the coverage is local or state. Per their dining section, it's labeled "Portland & Oregon Dining". S0091 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 'the solution' is a different 'line of attack' rather than fixating on whether or not The Oregonian is a local, regional or statewide source. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with Valereee's restaurant count. Use of 'categories' as the basis significantly understates the number of Portland restaurants with a Wikipedia article. Opening the collapsible template box normally found at the bottom of each restaurant article reveals a much higher number. Haven't counted them one by one, but my rough estimate is around the 450 mark including defuncts and chains. Rupples (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I think that several factors are combining here. I think that our NCORP guideline (and using it to calibrate GNG regarding coverage) if fully implemented would be OK, but in reality it usually isn't. And so Wikipedia is at risk of turning into the yellow pages for tens of millions of local businesses. In both of the linked AFD's there was an absence of a discussion establishing that there was true in depth coverage by even one source. Common reviews / writeups aren't that. Instead of pointing to even one with in depth coverage, the argument was basically only that there are a bunch of references, a general claim that GNG is met. And a sort of "if you don't agree, you need to prove a negative instead of me establishing that coverage with even one source." Similarly for the other linked one, and the lack of any real content in that other article evidences that. Regarding the Oregonian, IMHO the one of the two other unspoken criteria that the wp:notability ecosystem implements (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) is why the non-local coverage required by the tougher sourcing standards NCORP exists which is to see if there is extra recognition by non-local sources. Also to see if there is more there to cover with enclyclopedic content compared to the typical restaurant. A sort of vetting from the other 10 million restaurants with local reviews where they or their fans would like them to have a Wikipedia article. IMHO the Oregonian is local in this respect. If we strengthen the existing language (just a bit more clarity and expansion, not a change of substance) I think that that would help. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use subject notability standards to "calibrate" GNG... Each is applied separately and their outcomes can be different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically saying "never".....with that I don't agree. The most obvious example is use of NCORP sourcing and coverage criteria when applying GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use NCORP sourcing and coverage criteria when applying GNG, thats the whole point. Something can pass GNG and fail NCORP, thats fine and the article can be kept or deleted either way (passing doesn't mean the article is automatically notable after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your first sentence and IMHO I'm stating current and accepted reality. I agree with your second sentence. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writeups on businesses by newspapers that normally cover routine news from the location of those businesses should always be considered local. I don't understand how this is controversial? JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, it's controversial because of the language at WP:AUD: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. (Emph mine)
This is being interpreted to mean that TO, because it is a statewide publication, isn't a local source even for Portland, which (because that's where it's published and that's Oregon's largest city) is its primary coverage area. That is what is being used at AfD to argue notability of businesses that have no coverage outside of Portland-area publications. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is not the only way to notability for a restaurant, it could also pass GNG in the food or locality categories (business is just one category that applies to them, it doesn't get to trump any of the other categories). It can fail NCORP and be notable, end of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this position seems reasonable in a vacuum, it doesn't make sense in the context of the actual text of NCORP. NCORP's provisions are purely a stricter version of GNG, established for the express purpose of de-valuing the notability-establishing qualities of routine business coverage that is produced in high quantities and with dubious levels of independence. While it is theoretically possible for a subject to meet an SNG and not GNG or vice versa, the specific provisions of NCORP mean that it is impossible for something to pass NCORP's primary criteria but not GNG, and the idea that we could evaluate company or organization articles by GNG instead of NCORP flies in the face of both the basic reasoning of NCORP's existence and the established practice at AfD and NPP; NCORP would be a dead letter if GNG can overrule it.
Now, we could form a new consensus that restaurants form a special category of company, and that thus we should treat them differently, similar to the exceptions made for WP:NSCHOOL. No such carveout currently exists, and the suggestion below that a restaurant could be assessed as companies, food and drink, and Oregon ignores that no special SNGs for "food and drink" or "Oregon" exist. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can overrule the other, thats why notability is decided based on a case-by-case consensus. We may decide to delete an article which passes an SNG and/or GNG and we may decide to keep an article which fails GNG but passes an SNG (and vice versa). The only thing we can't do is keep an article which passes neither GNG or any of the SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a viable reading in abstract, but doesn't reflect how AfD consensuses are actually determined. Can you point to any AfDs about a company or organization closed as keep with a consensus that NCORP was not met? signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you make the same argument for BBC News articles on subjects in London, since BBC News is based in London? Garuda3 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3 I think that is an apples/oranges comparison. The BBC is an international publication while The Oregonian is local to Oregon, see their About Us page vs the BBC's. The question here is should The Oregonian's restaurant coverage be considered local. It describes itself as a "local" publication for Oregon with their dining section labeled as "Portland & Oregon Dining", which to me suggests they do make a distinction between the two but unclear how to tell the difference if is it Portland coverage vs. Oregon, outside of the location of the establishment. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That argument might work if The Oregonian was independent, but its not its owned by Advance Publications so the "location of the establishment" is as effectively New York City as it is Portland. I would also ask how coverage of a region (Oregon) could be local? Either its local coverage or its Oregon coverage but it can't be both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my last sentence was facetious, I'm well familiar with why this is controversial. I 100% agree that The Oregonian is local for Portland businesses, and I think this is extremely evident from the fact that the newspaper covers, for Portland, the exact types of routine announcements etc. excluded from being "newsworthy" by NOTNEWS. If the newspaper regularly runs family-submitted obituaries or high school sports results from particular towns, those towns are obviously local to the newspaper. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this being discussed. I was the nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephants Delicatessen and felt that, despite the keep arguments that were made, the article doesn't Wikipedia:Speak for Itself - the business exists, it cares about the environment, is women-owned and is apparently a great place to work. The author said there was plenty material to add, but hasn't added it. Clearly Portland people like their food but it is as if there's a different threshold of notability at play here and I am glad Valereee has called it out. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an interesting question, Elephants Delicatessen is categorized as Companies, Food and Drink, and Oregon... So why would NCORP be the *only* notability standard which applies? It can fail NCORP and still be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because restaurants are at the very least a proprietorship which are covered under NCORP. In addition, restaurants are specifically mentioned eight times in the guideline for example WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, which does state: Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience). S0091 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes NCORP applies, but what else does? GNG always applies but do any of the other SNG? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG actually does not always apply, for example WP:NPROF and generally WP:NPLACE is an exception. NCORP is an extension of GNG but distinguishes itself by WP:ORGCRIT, which topics that fall under NCORP must meet. See Rosguill's comments above as well. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of WP:NPROF both the SNG WP:NPROF and GNG apply... In the case of WP:NPLACE the SNG WP:NGEO and GNG apply. SNG are not extensions of GNG, NCORP is an SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad wording on my part perhaps but at the end of the day businesses do need to meet NCORP. It's largely why the guideline exists. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, is this unique to NCORP or are there other SNG which work this way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think NCORP is the exception as far as a guideline being more strict than GNG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT) but I don't want to drag this discussion off-topic. Valereee's purpose of the discussion is about a single source and how it should be treated for a single topic area that falls under NCORP. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is off topic, the question is about NCORP not the specific source otherwise we would be at WP:RSN. Does NCORP take precedence over other SNG? For example a sports team would be covered by GNG, NCORP, and WP:NSPORTS (which explicitly points to GNG, not NCORP). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one other SNG that is similar in its restriction, rather than expansion of criteria is WP:NEVENT. Categorizing SNGs by the nature of their provisions is an exercise that I like to use in NPPSCHOOL to get editors familiar with the SNGs. The correct answer looks more or less like this, although there's some wiggle room as to what should be part of category 3 (even mix) vs. primarily 1 or 2. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interesting theory, what's the basis for the three categories you've created? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's purely descriptive, based on the content of the SNGs themselves. Moreover, virtually every student I've tutored has provided essentially the same answer to the question (with a little bit of variation in which are considered to be part of the "both" category, particularly for the more obscure SNGs WP:NWEB and WP:NNUMBER), and it received enthusiastic support from the other NPPSCHOOL instructors when I first introduced it to the curriculum a few years ago. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you teach in the case of a contradiction either between the GNG and an SNG or between SNGs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the questions and answers immediately before and after the section I linked, which take that up directly. This other student's answer's are perhaps more illustrative. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well now I'm confused because there you say "SNGs are shortcut rules by which we can establish that it is highly likely that GNG is met." which is entirely different than anything we've so far discussed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's what I get for simplifying "heuristic" down to "shortcut rule". I'd stand by it as a description of the category 1 inclusion-criteria SNGs (and as a correction to the student's main error). signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a description of just those its not bad... I prefer a treasure map analogy with the treasure being the intangible point where a subject magically attains enough significant coverage to flip from non-notable to notable... GNG is a general map for general purpose use while the SNG are maps made by those with considerable accrued knowledge in a specific subject area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to NSPORT, This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline so if the subject was a sport team or club, I would defer to NSPORT (if covered) or GNG. NCORP specifically states bands (which is technically a "group") falls under NMUSIC. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, its good to know that there are some situations in which you would be willing to consider both GNG and NCORP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easily confused, but what are we hoping to decide here? There's nothing wrong with the Oregonian over any other State or Regional newspaper, it's just that there is a disproportionate use of this source for building articles on restaurants that are marginally notable at the very best. If we had the same rabid foodie fanbase is Oklahoma City, for instance, the issue would still be the same, just a different newspaper. Do I have that right? And the issue is that WP:AUD is trumping WP:GNG in deletion discussions? I don't think anyone would mistake me for a deletionist, but that doesn't seem right. WP:LOCALINT is a failed proposal, and WP:LOCAL is an essay (not guideline or policy) that I don't find helpful here. My take is that the proposal seems to take issue with one particular publication. In my opinion we need to address how we handle business reviews in papers serving any locality. Back when I regularly read the Oregonian, restaurant reviews were in the "Local" section. If it's relegated to the fourth page of "Local" should that be considered statewide coverage? I don't know the current state of the publication, but is an appearance in "local" given equal weight to, say, a page 2 writeup which would generally be considered of statewide interest? Or course everything is online and you can't distinguish between sections anymore, I guess. I'm not sure I'm helping, but I see three questions here. 1- is the Oregonian of any different quality than other State/Regional papers, should it be singled out? 2-Is there some context we can glean by the type of writeup within a State/Regional paper? 3-Do we need to enhance AUD to clarify the intent so we avoid WP:NOTYELLOW? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories