Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 29 March 2012 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

We're causing confusion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination) indicates that the current text at WP:CORPDEPTH is tripping up some editors. Specifically, consider this scenario (using a drug company as an example):

  • BigPharmaCo makes a product, Curesitall
  • Dr X, employed by BigPharmaCo, writes a clearly non-marketing paper about the product, e.g., "The pharmacodynamics of Curesitall in short, skirt-wearing Martians"
  • The paper is published (as a regular article) in a completely independent, absolutely reputable publication (e.g., Academic Journal of Impressiveness: an Elsevier publication).

Now:

We agree that www.BigPharmaCo.com is an utterly worthless source for showing notability of the product. So is any advertisement they paid for.

But is the independence of the publication (that is, the editors and the printers and the distributors, rather than the author) enough to show make this particular source useful as a demonstration of notability? I think it probably is, but what do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the AJI aware of the COI? Is the COI disclosed in the article? Does BigPharma have a full-page ad in that issue of the AJI? Cases, as they say, vary. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting in to that level of assessment is I think dangerous and risking POV. As for the original question, the article might make Curesitall notable but not necessarily BigPharmaCo. You still need some kind of independent sources talking about the company to at least start the article off for information. Where do you think the "confusion" is?--Icerat (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
IMO such an article could at most speak to the notability of the product, not the manufacturer (or author), since the product is the subject of the article.
Icerat, it appears to be possible to (in good faith) interpret the existing wording as both clearly rejecting this article and accepting it as (one) indication of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading better through the AfD mentioned, I see what you mean. The WP:CORPDEPTH "independence of sources" section appears to be the issue, in that with the example of a peer-reviewed journal, independent people have considered it a "notable" enough topic to publish, but someone independent didn't actually write the information as WP:CORPDEPTH would indicate is necessary. One could change the wording to "published" but then you get in to the issue or republishing of press releases, which is a world away from publishing an ostensibly peer-reviewed article. Some wording that makes the difference clear would appear useful. Hmm ... How about a simple change like or for and -
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough, for example, they have written or published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.--Icerat (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"non-trivial, non-routine works" would exclude press releases but "or published" would now incorporate independently published/not independently written peer-reviewed works. --Icerat (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As another example, I think if a recognized publisher published a book about a topic, even if written by a non-independent source, that would speak to notability.--Icerat (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
If a non-independent author writes a work that is published by an independent publisher, and that work is the only source for claiming notability, I have to question whether notability is established. Surely if the topic is notable, there will be at least one completely independent reliable source that discusses it. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and that's already addressed - "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization". I think an example as given contributes to notability, but standing alone it doesn't establish it.--Icerat (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The question, paraphrased could read, "does reliability equal notability." Is that a correct paraphrase? So if the source is extremely reliable, does that, all by itself, make the topic (or whatever) notable?
It seems to me that one can state plenty of reliable quotes that don't result in notability, to play devil's advocate. For example, a NY Times police blotter type of report where a nn person is accused of something. That wouldn't, by itself, make the person notable, although be it far from me to question the Times. Quite reliable, usually. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, in that instance WP:BLP would advise against use of that as an RS, as does WP:NOTNEWS.--Icerat (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? If, say, some politician gets arrested, say for drunk driving, and The New York Times reports the arrest in a typical police-blotter column, you think that editors should not be permitted to add this information to the pre-existing article about an obviously notable politician?
Or do you only mean (as Student7 says) that we should not start articles on each of the thousands of people who get arrested each day? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest that if a notable politician got arrested for drunk driving, there would be more of a report than just a "typical police-blotter column". If not, then no, it shouldn't be added to the article. This is sensible if for no other reason than you may have the wrong person. --Icerat (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS... When a famous person is arrested, we should wait to see what the significance of the arrest is. The arrest may end up being a minor embarrassment (in which case mentioning it at all would probably give the event undue weight), or it may end up having a major impact on the subject's career. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Arrest (police blotter)

Didn't want to digress the above thread too much, but it does occur to me that we are adding "police blotter" stuff to articles which have reports from third world countries where the wheels of justice turn slowly, if at all, sometimes retarded/advanced by corruption. In fact, most of our reports from third world countries are like this. We wouldn't report anything at all, if it weren't for the "police blotter" (some reports aren't that good!).

The reports tend to be "top of the head" primary source type of reports that have to be severely edited. Meanwhile interested editors are standing by screaming "foul" when tabloid type info is edited out, or reworded in a more calm manner. Editors on "these other articles" have worked things out. I'm not suggesting a policy change, but there are (alas) other scenarios that do not follow the West's methodical report, arrest, trial, conviction/dismissal scenarios. There are some that seemingly continue "forever." A long saga with groups of people taking sides. Think OJ Simpson, or other contentious media events. But think of articles where nearly all events are like that, except they never seem to reach trial and resolution. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I would ask people to read WP:NOTNEWS. When it comes to a BLP, we should go slow and hold off on reporting an arrest (and remember, an arrest is not the same as a conviction) ... that does not mean we should never mention that the subject has been arrested, it means we wait to see what the long term significance of the arrest is (and focus on that significance in our article, rather than the arrest itself). Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather than be vague, try Christian_terrorism#India. I don't think there's a single instance of conviction. A few arrests, though. Not sure I can detect an actual arraignment. This is typical third world. BTW, what you are looking at is heavily massaged material since the reports are often somewhat tabloid in nature and often second-hand, since the reporters aren't too excited about getting them firsthand!  :( Please comment here rather than there so I don't get accused of canvassing! Editors are able to "work this out" over time. Resident editors, often relatively new to Wikipedia, tend to be highly annoyed that tabloid-type, subjective reports get edited. Oh, well. Student7 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Peak bodies

I'm just wondering if anyone thinks it necessary to specifically mention peak organisations on this page?

I refer to those organisations whose scope unites (in some sense) several other organisations and whose limitation is territorial (specifically national or state/provincial). See, for example, Canadian Federation of Medical Students, Confederation of Public Sector Unions, and Association of Art Museum Directors.

Speaking for myself, I treat such orgs as inherently notable. However, I still had to remove notability tags from those listed above. It may be useful, therefore, to mention them. LordVetinari (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should hold them to the same standards of notability, and avoid giving them special mention. There seem to be many self-styled associations and federations that represent few people and are not notable. Also, other associations may not be as notable as individual members. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. I hadn't thought of that. I'll go back and recheck the ones I mentioned above. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability and consumer product reports

The article says "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..."

Could we clarify what is meant by "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"? If a sprocket-making company has its products reviewed in "Sprocket Users Journal", is that notability? I'd suggest not. And even if its products occasionally get reviewed in general-circulation consumer journals like Consumer Reports, is that alone enough to establish notability?

I'd suggest that notability requires coverage that goes beyond routine product reviewing. Can we clarify the criterion? Perchloric (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of how this is being misunderstood? I think that run-of-the-mill reviews ("we have reviewed every single sprocket on the market") would be unhelpful, but more selective reviews ("we reviewed three models of sprockets") and reports ("Sprocket exposé: Joe's Sprockets linked to fatalities") might be very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking about a case like JoMoX (see discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/JoMoX). Their "sprocket" is electronic music machines. Of course they are mentioned in consumer reviews in journals for synthesizer enthusiasts. Someone might argue that this meets the requirements of WP:CORP because those reviews correspond to "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". But presumably this is not right, the term "consumer watchdog organization" should mean something more than routine coverage in niche consumer journals. So what kind of product reviews would be enough to establish notability? I agree that an exposé would count. But can a sufficient amount of routine "JoMoX's latest drum module gets 4 stars" coverage add up to notability? I'd like to suggest not, I think one would need articles about the company itself, in the wider press. If I saw an article in a major publication like the Wall Street Journal about this company's impact, I would be convinced of notability. Am I right to think that (roughly) is the WP standard? Perchloric (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting example, and I am going to think about it for a while.
Here are my initial thoughts: The trivially available sources for this company look mostly like product reviews in specialized/industry media. Some of them are probably routine reviews. Some of them (e.g., [1]) are more than routine reviews, but they don't exactly feel like regular news reporting. (Also, in that particular source, it technically seems to be a separate, but related company.)
If you limited yourself to WP:Independent sources (the only ones that matter for notability), I'm not sure you could say very much about the business itself. The subject of the article would primarily be its products (which is okay). But even then, I'm not sure what you could say that wouldn't amount to a list of product features, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about.
Consumer organization seems to be the relevant Wikipedia article on 'consumer watchdog organizations'. This guideline doesn't seem to address more typical product reviews at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there is only one US Consumer review, Consumer Reports, that most people trust. And I don't trust "Sprocket Monthly" who gives a lavish report on all new products, good or bad. An allied problem is no CR for other countries unless the product is common and sold in the US. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This past week at WP:COIN, it appears that Quackwatch is considered to be a "consumer watchdog organization" by some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Essay elevation to Guideline proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Essay to Guideline. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

internetretailer.com as a source?

I'm seeing a disconcerting number of company pages use links to internetretailer.com as their main or only sources of independent references. Has there been any discussion on the merits of this website? I'm not familiar with the field but it looks like it's snippets from press releases without substantial independent critical input. They seem to have "top500" lists but I'm unable to find an description of the methodology to creating it. My underlying concern is that they're taking money (via subscriptions) from the companies they're promoting, making them noon-independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not heard of it before, and it's not listed in the WP:RSN archives.
Their magazine is probably an okay source (it doesn't seem to be the sort where you pay to have an "article" published). The press releases would not indicate notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

High schools once again

OrangeMike has removed this:

For example, some Wikipedians have argued that the age of the students determines whether a school is notable. This is not the case. Secondary schools which have never been discussed by published independent sources are not notable; elementary schools which have been discussed by published independent sources are notable. It is the existence of published independent sources, not the age of the students that makes school notable.

on the grounds that prior permission for the change was apparently not adequately documented on this talk page immediately before its addition. Whether it is "phrased in a gratuitously argumentative manner" is more than I care to comment on. Here are links to five discussions in the archives, zero of which supported the idea that the age of the students is what makes a school notable. Here are links to four failed proposals trying to get this idea approved. The inherent notability of high schools has never been supported by this or any other notability guideline. The community has rejected this claim every time it has been given an opportunity to consider it. The fact that a small number of people (many of them both teenagers and rather inexperienced editors) quote a disputed essay at AFDs as a justification for deleting apparently notable schools for younger children, or for keeping tiny high schools whose only proof of existence is their own websites, does not create a magic exemption for high schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was correctly removed. TerriersFan (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Strengthen the notability criteria for companies

The current criteria:

if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

are not strong enough. It's very easy for a business to manufacture "independent, secondary source" coverage, since there is no limit to paper size on the Web.

Simply writing a press release and submitting it to the right places, with certain other PR steps, is enough to earn a mention in several news sources, particularly online ones.

I'm looking particularly at the Sentiment Analysis article, which I just edited. It appears that editing Wikipedia is part of several companies' marketing schemes. The individual companies' pages have external references, yes -- but they are from places like "Xconomy.com". Is that really sufficient for notability? Or are these companies just playing by the letter of Wikipedia's rules as part of their marketing scheme?


Now, a mention in a print paper (it costs to print more pages and a thicker paper is less desirable) with a decently big readership is probably sufficient to make a company notable. A feature-length article in the WSJ would certainly be sufficient.

I'm not saying that WSJ mention needs to be a necessary criterion -- but the current criteria are asking to be gamed, and apparently already have been gamed. Crasshopper (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a failure of the criteria, but of the examination of the sources. Xconomy.com and the like do not constitute the requisite reliable sources; nor do the portions of Reuters and the like that simply regurgitate press releases. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To continue the above, these two sentences potentially contradict each other:
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.
If there's been trivial or incidental coverage of an organization in multiple secondary sources, is that sufficient to establish notability? The first sentence seems to indicate that notability is a quantitative feature, while the stress in the second sentence is squarely on quality.—Biosketch (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
What is trivial or incidental coverage? Is this [2] trivial? Or this [3], or this [4]? as these are the kinds of sorces being discused here [5]. I see no contradiction, it says that either one very in-depth source or multiple non-in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NonProfit that works local and worlwide

can we write a page about ourselves? Does notable mean when we have been in local and national news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.109.61 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

1. You should not write about yourselves; see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO.
2. Notability is covered at WP:CORP. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"No inherited notability"

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

No I think it is fine as it is. Mtking (edits) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree... the policy is fine as it is. Notable people can form non-notable partnerships, just as notable partnerships can be formed by non-notable people. For a partnership to be notable, it needs to be notable as an entity in its own right ... and not rely on "inherited" notability from its partners. Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you've both missed the point. I'm not saying that a partnership is notable merely because of it has notable partners. What I am saying is that because a partnership, at law, is not an entity independent of its partners, one factor to consider within the larger circumstances is the nature of its constituent partners. While it may verge on a tautology to say so, since CORP is a guideline, consideration of such things would offer further guidance. (And, FWIW, "I think it's fine" provides no real rationale beyond mere contradiction.) Agent 86 (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Can you explain what you mean by that? It's ambiguous and can be taken several ways. I'd be interested in reading more about what you are thinking. Thanks. Agent 86 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
        • A company, even if owned by two people, may produce more value then you can attribute solely to those two individuals. Does that help? I mean this is a common concept so I would have thought that the meaning here is clear. Bottom line is that if a company is notable, it does not mean that by default so are it's owners. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Clearly the notability (or not) of a firm has no direct correlation to the notability (or not) of it's members, owners or directors. Mtking (edits) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Agent 86 seems to be attempting this from the other direction: If Nancy Notable and Joe Filmstar and Paul Political form a partnership, then he believes the partnership should deserve a separate, stand-alone article entirely about the partnership because the owners are notable, not because the partnership itself has attracted notice from reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Vegaswikian. I agree with that take on the sentiment; however, I am also considering it in the broader context of the nature of a partnership, the existence of which is dependent upon and cannot be independent from its partners. Unlike a corporation, where anyone can buy shares, becoming a member of a partnership is more intrinsically related to the nature and qualities of the person who is a potential partner. Therefore, simply asserting that the notability of a partnership (which does not have "directors", unlike a corporation) has no direct correlation to the notability of its members is absurd. If a group of notable film directors, animators, and record executives formed a partnership, the corporality of which is wholly dependent upon the individuals forming the partnership, then that is an indicia that the partnership might have some notability. However, the notability of the partnership still would require other signs of notability. Thus, notability is not automatically conferred (which is not what I have been saying), but it is but a single factor to consider, giving reason to believe that there may be the potential for notability. Cheers. Agent 86 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    Not exactly. If you want to write an article about the partnership, then you need to find sources about the partnership, not about the partners. If no such sources exist (e.g., all your sources about the Grand Research Alliance is a brief mention in news articles actually about one of the famous partners), then you shouldn't write an article at [[Grand Research Alliance]]. You should instead create a ==Section== in the [[Famous Partner]] article that discusses their involvement in the partnership. "Doesn't (currently) qualify for its own, separate, stand-alone article" is not the same thing as "Must never be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia".
    You are sort of right about the involvement of notable individuals giving an indication that it might be notable. However, that "might" only protects you from speedy deletion under WP:A7. It does not give you any help at all under WP:N or CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you and I are more in agreement than you think, WhatamIdoing. I think I have steadfastly maintained that if the only indicia of notability is the composition of the partnership, that alone is not enough. What I am saying is that it is something to consider when weighing the other sources relating to notability under CORP. I guess the flip side of what I'm saying is that you cannot ignore the fact that an partnership is comprised of notable individuals, who are intrinsically and inherently part of the entity, unlike a corporation where it's perfectly reasonable to ignore who the shareholders might be. Agent 86 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
      Perhaps the major point behind notability isn't clear. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements (a relatively new section)? We're not requiring multiple independent sources just for the fun of it. We're requiring this because you cannot write a decent encyclopedia article under any other circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue with this statement

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

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

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

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

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

Well the same thing can be argued with the Nobel Peace Prize and the Academy awards. There arbitrary criteria also factor in. Oscars are generally won by drama films which deal with a big societal issue. And the selection of Nobel Peace Prize is a political decision by the Norwegian Parliament, there have been several controversial awards over the years. I doubt there is any award which operates on 100% objective criteria. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That's all true, but the problem with this guideline is that it elevates a guidebook to notabilty arbiter. That's akin, for movies, to saying that being listed in the Allmovie Guide makes a movie notable. Now, most movies in that guide may well be notable. But we can't rely upon that guide. We have our own criteria. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that under the notability rules for people, an entry in Marquis Who's Who is not sufficient to establish notability. That's at least as exclusive as the Michelin Guide. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No need for a change here. Most of the critical comments come from ex-employees with a grudge and restaurants who lost, or did not get, a star. Besides that, how on earth are you going to make "defined, objective metrics" voor things like service, presentation, atmosphere and taste? Night of the Big Wind talk 02:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jeremy for the reasons that he stated, and as a matter of fact I was going to raise the issue here myself but he beat me to it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That is the problem with a food review, they cannot be subjective. What one reviewer finds unbelievably tasty another may find merely pedestrian which is mentioned in the article on Michelin. Opinions differ between people and a lack of defined metrics makes the review process unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs)
And that is just why they use more then one inspector to judge a restaurant. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
See also here Night of the Big Wind talk 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That is an opinion piece, not an article from a reliable source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Opinion pieces can meet the definition of a WP:Reliable source. You might want to go read WP:RSOPINION if you're having trouble with the idea that we can reliably support subjective statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That is for establishing reliability of articles, not bolstering your opinion in a discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
We do not establish the "reliability of articles". We establish the notability of subjects (the purpose of this page), and the reliability of individual statements in articles (which RSOPINION says can be done for subjective statements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
We're not trying to write articles about good restaurants. We're trying to write articles about restaurants that get a lot of attention from WP:Independent sources, even if they're truly lousy. Can you honestly say that you've ever run across a restaurant that was awarded three stars in the Michelin Guide, and didn't get enough newspaper and magazine articles to write an article about the restaurant?
There's nothing in this rule of thumb that says only three-star restaurants are notable, or that the third star itself is what makes the restaurant qualify for an article on Wikipedia. We're just saying that—as with US Presidents and atomic elements—nobody's ever found one yet for which dozens of independent sources couldn't be found by anyone who bothered to look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that the footnote was added on March 23[6] after a brief discussion[7] that did not focus on the Michelin guide in any detail. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that just because it is reviewed by Michelin, does mean it is noteworthy. The star ratings may get the place noticed, but by themselves the ratings do not establish noteworthiness. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. That's why I'd suggest that this offhand language, placed rather casually in a footnote, needs to be removed.ScottyBerg (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So you accepts that Michelin stars make a restaurant noteworthy but want it stated on a more prominent place??????? Night of the Big Wind talk 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the reference to Michelin ratings should be removed entirely from the notability guideline. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
But you still haven't found a single example of a Michelin three-star restaurant that wasn't actually notable. Why should we remove an apparently accurate statement?
Put another way, why is it okay to say that someone who wins an Oscar is notable—not because winning makes you inherently notable, but because all winners get a lot of publicity—but it's not okay to say that someone who wins a third star is notable, even though three-star restaurants get just as much publicity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotty, try to be realistic. "Michelin starred restaurants" is just one category within the wider category of notable restaurants. Another categories within the notable restaurants could be the restaurants named in the AAA, Mobil/Forbes, or other guides. If those categories don't exist, my answer is simple: fixit. They are not less the Michelin restaurants, they are just mentioned in another guide. If there is a guide for the best hotdog and hamburger restaurants in the USA and Canada, and the community decides that it is a valuable, noteworthy guide, Wikipedia should have articles about them. But even then restaurants can be notable for other reasons than great food, like Nam Kee (which featured in a best-selling Dutch novel and a film based on the novel), Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop (frequented by students who later became US presidents), Columbia Restaurant (the oldest Spanish restaurant in the USA) and, unfortunately, the Golden Dragon, San Francisco (Golden Dragon massacre). Night of the Big Wind talk 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If those restaurants are notable, then that should be determined by reliable third party sources, not by what some guidebook says about them whether it is Michelin, Mobil AAA, Frommer, Fodor or some other. Our standards have always been that notability is determined by sources, not by third party reference works, whether or not they view their ratings as "awards" or as ultimate arbiters of "fine dining." We don't care if the food they serve is any good. We only care if the restaurant meets notability standards. It could be swill for all we care. This is an encyclopedia, not a fine-dining guide. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Michelin Guide is a "reliable third-party source". In fact, if the statement you're trying to support is "This restaurant was awarded two stars in the Michelin Guide," then the Guide is the single most reliable source in the universe for that statement, and the fact that the Guide is a third-party (=not owned or controlled by the restaurants they're reviewing) is amply documented in multiple sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not whether the Michelin Guide is a reliable third party source, but the language in the footnote that a listing can be "presumed notable." Let's focus on that and not be sidetracked. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
NotBW, central to your reply is the assumption that Michelin starred restaurants are inherently notable. This discussion is about the validity of that assumption, and what "the community"'s thoughts are regarding it. You seem to be missing that point. Pyrope 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And central to your opinion is the assumption that Michelin starred restaurants are inherently not-notable. Do we agree to disagree? Night of the Big Wind talk 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not my position at all. My position is that being starred does not automatically confer notability, but that stars may contribute toward notability in addition to multiple, significant, reliable, third-party sources that directly discuss the subject of the article. As I pointed out elsewhere, your article on De Swaen is extremely borderline in establishing its notability. What you have there amounts to one brief write-up in an online trade magazine, a catering supply company blog, a number of pages drawn from the restaurant or its successor's own webpages, and tabulated summaries of Michelin guides past. That's it. Not one single general circulation newspaper article, not a single reference to it ever having been discussed in the mainstream media, not any evidence that it has had any wider societal impact other than being a place that some people in Oisterwijk occasionally ate at and that chefs worked there. It is a mundane, even dull, article that adds little to no encyclopedic value. Despite its Michelin star this restaurant, from the sources provided, seems to have been a distinctly run-of-the-mill establishment. All you can really say is "it was a restaurant and now it is not", because that's all the sources say. That isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Pyrope 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
17 years one or more stars and you regard it borderline notability? On what planet do you live? FGS, Misset Horeca is the oldest trade magazin about restaurants in The Netherlands. Research it a bit, and you can see that it has also a paper version, as far as I know for at least 20 years. The blog was used to show that the restaurant closed and lost its last star. De Telegraaf is a national newspaper, the biggest in the country. If the article is that bad, why don't you nominate it for deletion? Night of the Big Wind talk 12:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
After chacking it turned out that I was very cautious with Misset Horeca. They celebrate their 60th anniversery in 2012! Every two weeks about 18.000 magazins roll off the presses, for a Dutch trade magazin very much! Night of the Big Wind talk 14:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it was central to his opinion, but I can't speak for that editor. What I would like to point out is that the guideline is so worded that all restaurants in the guide are considered inherently notable, whether they receive stars or not. The majority of restaurants in the Michelin guide do not receive stars, according to the article to which you linked above[8]: "...in the Michelin Guide to France 2009, 3,531 restaurants are included, but just 548 received a star. Most of these restaurants -- 449 -- received one-star, 73 received two stars, and 26 received three." ScottyBerg (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: what Michelin Guide are you looking in? There are several Guides, for France, The Netherlands, New York, Great Britain and Ireland and a few others. Second question: could you agree with a rewording so only the starred restaurants in the Guides are mentioned (in fact, in such a way dat also high scoring restaurants of other Guides are included.) Night of the Big Wind talk 12:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Scotty has hit the issue on the head, we need to eliminate the references to Michelin in the statement. Ratings are problematic, and we must not use them to establish notability. by eliminating the mention here, that will go a long way to fixing the problem. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Subjective break

I would also agree that ScottyBerg has pretty much identified the problem here. If a restaurant is notable, ipso facto it will have been noticed by the wider world. For there not to be any further coverage of the restaurant outside of Red Guide is strongly suggestive of the fact that the restaurant in question isn't actually that significant. Pyrope 18:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In fact it works a bit the other way with my articles: assuming that Michelin starred articles are almost automatically notable (has somebody an exeption for me?), I did not look for other sources. If the community decides that a Michelin star is not enough as evidence, I have to start looking at other sources. And I have no doubt that I will find them for each and every restaurant I have described yet. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That is in fact what we are saying: The presence in the guide, or any other guide, and the resulting rating does not establish or confer notability on said facility and that reliable sources do. What we want to see is the elimination of the clause about the Michelin guide from WP:Org to ensure that others do not make the mistake. What we should do is reinstate the discussion about restaurant notability guidelines and hash the issue out there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The Guide is a reliable source (as are many other guidebooks). It therefore does contribute to notability (but almost nothing to the "significant coverage" requirements).
  • Having a star in the Guide is a marker or proxy for being notable. That's why it only makes the subject "presumed notable", not "inherently and unquestionably notable". Zero organizations in the history of the world are inherently notable. All of them must eventually produce sources. But there are a few qualities that let us make a convenient guess at whether an organization is likely to be notable. Having a star in the Guide is one of those qualities. We have never yet found a non-notable restaurant with a star. (As for merely being listed, I'd be surprised if very many of them were non-notable, but it's possible, just like it's possible that some Fortune 500 company, Oscar winner, or NYSE-listed publicly traded company will be non-notable in practice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times, The Boston Globe and numerous other sources all meet the standards as reliable sources, but a review from them are not acceptable indicators of being notable because of the inherent subjective nature of a review. Additionally, these sources have at one time or another have produced differing opinions of the same facilities as stated in the Michelin guide article. At best reviews, no matter the source, can only provide verifiability of the subject. I can agree, if I am reading your post correctly, that we can cite them for secondary information within an article. What we are claiming in this discussion is that contributors should not use them as a way of claiming a restaurant was well reviewed by a famous book, therefore it is notable. The removal of this clause would go a long way in fixing that problem. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Jeremy, that's simply not true. There's not one word in any notability guideline that says "subjective" independent reliable sources don't count as receiving attention from the world at large. In fact, "subjective" sources are the most valuable indications of notability in certain areas (e.g., artwork). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Restaurant-wise we only have to look at Mzoli's. Which is one of the few articles created by Jimbo Wales. After its creation it generated a debate whether it should be deleted or not and this was picked up by the main stream media and bingo: instant notability. I doubt it would have survived being nominated for deletion if it had been created by any other Wikipedian. It does not seem very remarkable to me based on its description in the article. So my view is that even when the mainstream press is hyping something up we should keep a cool head.SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, let's not get hung on for semantics. For all intents and purposes, "presumed notable" has been utilized in AfD discussions as identical to "unquestionably notable" or simply "it's notable." Deletion discussions have hinged on that footnote. If it's your position that the Michelin Guide should count no more than other reliable sources, then you should support removal of the mention of Michelin in the footnote. Also, as I've pointed out above, the guideline makes no mention of stars. It states that all restaurants listed in the guide are presumed notable, whether or not they have stars. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And can you produce an example of a "merely listed" restaurant that didn't receive publicity merely for being listed? I'm open to the possibility that the wording needs to be tightened up, but simple assertions of non-notability aren't the same as proof. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your assertion that "it doesn't mean a thing if a restaurant has received publicity for being listed" is simply false. If a restaurant gets a feature-length article in a newspaper because of its listing (and that doesn't appear to be unusual), then that feature-length article means quite a lot. A feature-length newspaper article is practically the definition of "significant coverage". "Trivial coverage" means a couple of sentences, or otherwise containing so little information that you can't write much about the subject based on it, not coverage that you personally believe was prompted by some trivial reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have in mind a lengthy feature article. I was thinking of what I was actually seeing as I googled New York restaurants that had received Michelin listings, which were articles mentioning it in passing. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of ORG like any other sub-notability guideline is to assert criteria that, assuming the topic meets them, there will likely be additional sources to help eventually meet the GNG in the future, but require said sources to be found or wait for them to appear. It is, effectively, a temporarily allowance from the GNG. Being listed in the Red Guide seems like such a reasonable case, given the weight that those ratings have on the restaurant industry, regardless if negative or positive; if the restaurant has one or more stars, then likely there are more local sources to go into depth on that. But again, that's all presumption. If a restaurant appears in the Red Guide and within five years no sources appear beyond that, then yes, it may not be notable. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a non-notable Michelin starred restaurant? Night of the Big Wind talk 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not the point, as Pyrope has stated, it is only an indicator that there is notability as any restaurant that has been well received by critics from any major source will usually get secondary press coverage. However it is that secondary press coverage that establishes the notability and not the review itself. As I have stated in other areas every single restaurant gets reviewed at some point by a reliable source so it becomes a case that reviews are like listings in the phone book, business directories, etc. Reviews themselves, and Michelin is still a review despite how it is regarded, are too subjective and we require objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. (per WP:Note) Just because it is in the guide doesn't mean it has been shown that it has received said coverage. As it has been stated elsewhere by others being well reviewed by the guide is an indicator that there is probably proper independent coverage about the facility in other reliable, secondary sources; however unto itself an appearance in the guide, or any other similar source, does not confer immediate notability.
Additionally, the subjective nature of a review and differing opinions between reviewers and guides, makes reviews themselves problematic. As stated in the Michelin guide article, there are cases where well regarded and reviewed eateries received no stars in the Red book despite contrary opinions espoused by reviewers attached to other reliable sources that reviewed the facility (In the case mentioned, The New York Times and Zagat). Again I will state that the guide can be used to support secondary claims within an article, but it does not confer notability as some claim. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You are misreading the statement at WP:N. Objective evidence does not require the sources to be objective; it requires that there is, objectively aka without any question, independent sources showing significant coverage (typically secondary, meaning analysis, synthesis, and critiques are involved) of the topic. Reviews and other subjective sources -- as long as they are from a reliable source -- are considered appropriate for this. A restaurant or any other type of establishment that has received multiple reviews from reliable , independent sources will be considered notable, irregardless of what other sources exist. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But this footnote makes a Michelin listing dispositive, and that's how it's been interpreted at AfDs, where marginal restaurants have been kept solely on the basis of Michelin, without seriously probing further as required by WP:ORG. See for instance this one[9], where the nominator withdrew the AfD after the footnote was pointed out, and the nominators all cited the Michelin listing as sufficient to establish notability, or this one[10], in which a restaurant was so lacking in notability that it was listed for speedy deletion, which was thwarted on the basis of it being an "awarded restaurant." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain: the GNG (what's stated at WP:N) requires the objective existence of multiple secondary sources for a topic to be presumed notable. We recognize that for some specific areas that is not always immediately possible, and that's why we have sub-notability guidelines (SNGs) like this one, to describe cases where, because a specific criteria is met, there will likely be sources not yet discovered or in the future that will allow the topic to meet the GNG, and thus we presume it notable. A common case is if a previously "unknown" (lacking an article on Wikipedia) person wins the Nobel prize. It's been well established that all Nobel Prize winners will have biographical details in reliable sources along with the impact of their work/effort to earn the Nobel, and therefore we are pretty confident that such winners will meet the GNG given enough time to collect those sources; ergo, we allow the article on that person.
The same logic is being applied here. Being rated in Michelin (which only rates restaurants that meet specific standards) may not be as important as the Nobel, but it is one of the highest honors that a restaurant can receive. Per how I read this, it has been established that a restaurant receiving one or more Michelin stars is likely to have been critically reviewed by other sources or will gain more critical reviews because of getting such a star. Thus, over time, the GNG will be met. Hence, this is said to be a proper criteria for an SNG. Mind you, I personally have some reservations about that fact but I'm going by the consensus that appeared to have been previously established for this criteria that this does occur. If you don't believe this to be the case (That receiving a Michelin will lead to more pre-existing/new reviews), that's a point then to challenge and gain consensus on removing.
And to re-reiterate, GNG and SNGs are all about presumed notability. There may be a lot of secondary sources, but that doesn't mean we believe the topic to be notable. Similarly, while a restaurant may have a Michelin star, if no reviews or additional sources are discovered for it after several years from receiving that star, it's probably not notable as originally thought, and deletion is possible. But when there's a good likelihood that notability can be established in time, we should not be deleting things. Hence, as long as there's consensus that getting a Michelin star will likely end up with more sourcing, then its a valid SNG criteria. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But as I've repeatedly pointed out, the footnote does not refer to Michelin stars. It refers to Michelin listings, and is so worded that it can refer to other guidebooks as well - AAA, Frommer, the Forbes/Mobil guide, Lonely Planet. The vast majority of restaurants listed in the Michelin guides do not receive stars. As I've also noted, the significance of a Michelin listing is different in America, where they are rare, than they would be in France, where there are thousands of Michelin-listed restaurants. I think also that you're reading more into the provenance of this footnote than is justified, as the footnote was added without a consensus being established, or any extensive discussion. It was added a few months ago, and only became an issue recently, because of the AfD discussions that I mentioned. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If it just a listing, where a good fraction of the entries aren't rated, then this is a problem. Being listed with stars is one thing (given the weight of that star) but lacking any stars, being listed does not make it notable. Was there any discussion about this footnote being added, because SNGs, like the GNG, need global consensus. I'd argue that if this was just added without discussion, it should be removed and a more formal RFC started to determine if its a legitimate criteria. Mind you, I don't know how they choose what to put in the listing, but there may be criteria that Michelin uses that actually does relate to notability here, but looking at the situation from a very high level overview, this doesn't seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, the language of the footnote couldn't be plainer. It says "listing." No, there was no discussion. It was mentioned on the talk page here but was not noticed until recently, when it became an issue in AfDs. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's no real discussion towards consensus. I think even elsewhere (possibly at WT:CSD?) there was discussion about the deletion of a Fortune 500 company where, because they were like a commodities company with no physical product or major influential business practices, their only claim to fame was just being on the F500 list, and deletion was appropriate.
Now as I read the guideline better, I see what is being said is that being in F500 or a Michelin guide counts as "one source" towards notability (its more than a trivial mention), but that's only one source. GNG in general requires multiple sources. A restaurant that has a Michelin listed and, say, two or three other reviews from reliable local sources can be presumed to be notable. A restaurant that only has the Michelin listing cannot be considered notable. The footnote's language is right, but I see what you're saying about being mistaken as allowing the listing as an only source to be used for demonstration of notability. Some language needs to be changed or added to get around that. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it has definitely been interpreted to mean that a Michelin listing establishes notability. I've argued pretty much what you're saying, but it has not been an accepted interpretation of the rule, and frankly I can understand why my view has been rejected, as the rule literally says "presumed notable." ScottyBerg (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd personally have no objection to specifying "being awarded a star" rather than "ever listed", since the goal of that sentence is largely to say that while being on most "top 100" lists is irrelevant, being on some lists is a pretty good hint that there will almost certainly be sources if you do a proper search for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we just take out the language, as Masem suggested, and visit the subject afresh with an RfC. We can present multiple possibilities, including mentioning no guidebooks and mentioning others, such as the AAA Five-Diamond, Mobil, etc. That way we can get a fresh consensus, as this discussion is a bit messy, and also get wider community input. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If we go the RfC route, which I think is definitely a good idea, I'd suggest that we let it run its course through January before adding any language. This is the holiday season and many editors are away. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If you are referring to the phrase "listed in the Michelin Red Guide" and nothing more, it is possible that you are right. I don't know the Guide by heart. Would you be happy when the phrase is reworked to "the Star and Bib Gourmand listings in the Michelin Red Guide"? Night of the Big Wind talk 22:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the "you" is in your post, but speaking personally I wouldn't be "happy" with that language at all. My feeling is that the language should be removed entirely, for reasons I'm not going to repeat. But I think that we should commence an RfC, and get broad community input on this, as Masem has suggested. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Since the policy was changed without consensus or discussion, the footnote should be removed entirely, as Masem suggested, pending the RfC. However, I'm not going to do that, and I'd respectfully hint that since he brought up the idea, he may want to take the initiative. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
"Since the policy was changed without consensus or discussion":
  • BRD says editors can change guideline and policy even without discussions. However, if you BRD, and the change is disagreed with, even years later, then reverting it and discussing is the next step. This change was made, based on that discussion, after a whole 20 minutes of opening the topic and with only 2 editors in the thread. That's no where near enough time to tell if the change had consensus, and just because people watch and don't respond doesn't mean that the lack of response is explicit acceptance for that.
  • Starting an RFC is completely within line to decide if that footnote is appropriate or not in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've started one. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

On the failed AFD of L'Auberge

Yes, and I remember you nominating a restaurant for deletion because it was (amongst other things) a Dutch restaurant with Dutch sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant). Night of the Big Wind talk 19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it was "Long-defunct restaurant, only incidental mentions in articles about non-notable chef and in directories. Fails WP:ORG." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
To quote you: These are all Dutch-language publications, and I have no idea if they are reliable.... Night of the Big Wind talk 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That's right, I didn't. And you know what? This hasn't got a darn thing to do with notability standards, so let's put an end to this side-talk. Now. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
How can you judge over notability standards if you refuse to do your homework and check the supplied references? Night of the Big Wind talk 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Night, there's no rule that says people have to research everything in advance. If they're wrong, then people at AFD will tell them that they're wrong. There's no need to keep hassling them for making an honest mistake.
This is true when you can't read the sources named, but it's also true in many other circumstances. Notability is not about the existence of sources written in English, or available online, or named in any given version of an article. It's about whether independent sources have been published, no matter what the language or media or location of those sources. Not everyone realizes the full implications of that standard: "doing your homework" is almost impossible to do perfectly every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, but people pointed me at WP:BEGIN. That counts for everyone, or not? Night of the Big Wind talk 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
BEGIN (aka BEFORE) is encouraged but not required. In fact, it is extremely unusual for any nominator to scrupulously follow all sixteen numbered pieces of advice there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL, they threatend me with blocks when I would not adhere to it... Night of the Big Wind talk 02:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Were many of the articles you nominated being kept? Were your nominations seen as disruptive or frivolous? If someone is screwing up, we can (and will) make it mandatory for that person. We can and have also prohibited individuals from nominating any articles at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That was because you were nominating articles again and again that the most basic search would reveal have multiple reliable sources and since both WP:V and WP:N explicitly are about sources existing, not sources being present in the article, you were wasting lots of user's time with nominations that could not succeed. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the underlying concern: I believe we need to require sourcing to be present in articles and I believe we need a process for deleting article that are unsourced after a call for sources, and the elapse of a designated time period without sourcing being placed, but until the underlying policies are changed, nominations as those you were making were and remain disruptive. AfD is not the place to make this change. The policies that are invoked at AfD are.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_9&oldid=484504034"