Wikipedia talk:Notability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:NWT:N

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Wikipedia?". Make Use Of.
Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum.
Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times.
Stephen Harrison (26 March 2019). "The Notability Blues". Slate.
Sanghapali Aruna (15 December 2019). "How Wikipedia cancels Dalit icons". Deccan Chronicle.
Manjula Selvarajah (19 August 2021). "Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds". CBC.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 45 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Suggestion - Criteria needed for articles with family or families in title

My interest stems from this AfD discussion Before going to pump, I am seeking feedback from here and on AfD.

The current WP:GNG (general notability) and WP:NOTGENEALOGY don't specifically tackle "family" as a collective entity. Requiring explicit criteria (e.g., demonstrated collective significance via secondary sources treating the family as a unit, not just individuals) could prevent cruft (Family appears in thet itle of 12,000 articles and 22000 AfDs) while allowing well-sourced ones (e.g., Kennedy family or Rockefeller family) or biological and other uses,

\ Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 01:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a specific notability guideline relating to "families". A single AfD is not a reason to change the notability guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A valid list article if it has enough notable entries in it. Lists articles can exist if the group has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, or if enough things on the list have their own articles. Dream Focus 02:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Yes, a single AfD proves nothing, but with 22,000+ deletion discussions containing "family" in the title, patterns matter.

My focus includes editor retention: many editors quit after an AfD, (see it as conflict, disagree with the result, don't understand the guidelines, or weren't aware of them when creating the article).

Would a proposal to add family-specific notability examples/criteria gain better consensus if backed by data on "family"-titled AfDs showing: high delete or no-consensus rates, long/relisted/repeated discussions, sockpuppetry or canvassing/lobbying. unusually high speedy or AfD nomination frequency?

The Oracle of Deletion (thanks User:JPxG !) makes this data pull doable I think. with manual tagging of false postives (family guys episodes)

What do people think? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the article in question isn't a list, but a genealogy mostly based on primary sources. The subject is likely notable, but the article is in bad shape. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability inquiry

Question posed at Teahouse [1] brings me here regarding David Thomas Roberts. Before I either 1. Place the article up for AfD or 2. Bring it up to "good article" WP standards with a hard scrub; I wanted to get further impressions on whether it passes notability. I did find these 2 articles: [2], [3] and this mention: [4]. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renaud Joannes-Boyau

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaud Joannes-Boyau. Looking for input from editors experienced in evaluating the notability of academics. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use of judicial memoranda for notability in a case article

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Use of judicial memoranda for notability in a case article

– voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm reviewing Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for notability. This article cites two judicial memoranda written by judges in US District Court, which refer to the case. The essay Wikipedia:RSLAW says that court opinions are primary sources, however, prior discussion seems mixed. Are these memoranda acceptable for notability? Other related discussions below.

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an issue for RSN since it's a question of notability, but no, court opinions are primary sources that do not contribute to notability. For a court case to be notable, it generally needs in-depth secondary coverage in sources such as law reviews, not just passing mentions or bare citations. The draft you've linked to is almost certainly not notable. It might've gotten some press coverage when the settlement was announced, but that's not enough to meet GNG or NOTNEWS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, should this go to Wikipedia talk:Notability? —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cases: Redd v. Amazon [5], Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB [6] —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, court's opinions are primary sources, not secondary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I note that, even if we were to accept that a court opinion could be.a reliable source regarding a separate case, there's the issue of depth of coverage. A quick look at the documents in question makes it seem that the coverage in each is one to two paragraphs within a much longer document. We wouldn't consider that length in a New York Times article to be sufficient for advancing notability. One could argue, I suppose, that this is a sign that it has impact no matter how long it takes to express it, but two cases out of the vast array of court cases seems borderline at best. (For the general discussion of citations of such things, I should note that a court ruling is a self-published source, and while a judge may be considered enough of a topic expert to avoid general WP:SPS concerns, if this were being used on a case about an individual (rather than the class action versus a corporation that it is), that wouldn't conquer WP:BLPSPS.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that court opinions are SPSes. They are primary source documents issued by a government official. I also disagree that we can rely on court's opinions for sourcing claims about other court's opinions. We should pretty much always attribute legal analysis to a secondary source, usually a law review article, book, or treatise. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else would be WP:OR. I can read precedent one way and my adversary in court can read it the opposite. That's definitionally OR. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly report what one court opinion states about another courts opinion (attributed), since the court opinion is reliable for the opinion of the court (hence it's namesake). DUEness is separate. Katzrockso (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

since the court opinion is reliable for the opinion of the court. No, it's not, because individuals can and do read courts' opinions differently. One big part of being a lawyer is reading precedent and trying to explain why it's relevant or distinguishable to your case, which involves emphasizing different facts or points of law. Editors should not be engaging in legal analysis when writing articles. Even a "straightforward" holding can be nuanced. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The court affirmed the lower court's decision is an uncontroversial unambiguous reading of a court opinion. Are you suggesting that we could not cite that statement to a court opinion that states The District Court denied the motions to dismiss, but it granted the motions to disqualify Habba from the prosecutions. The Government appeals. We will affirm.? (recent court opinion [7]).

We could certainly stated "In the opinion in United States vs. Giraud, the court stated that according to United States v. Whittaker courts generally lack jurisdiction over appeals from pre-trial orders in criminal proceedings", citing page 11-12 of the already linked court opinion. This is completely policy-compliant and involves no original legal analysis. Whether or not such a statement is DUE is a completely different matter.

I agree that [e]ditors should not be engaging in legal analysis when writing articles. Katzrockso (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the use of the court opinions is definitely primary. Not all uses of court opinions (CO) is necessarily primary, there are certainly statements that you could use a court opinion as the source for that would qualify the CO as a secondary source in that context. Katzrockso (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest accepting it, and then immediately merging it into Kaiser Permanente#Strikes and labor disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to accept the draft to merge content. You can just do that and then redirect the draft. In any event, this is largely OR, so it should not be merged. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a single secondary source cited in the article; if you want to merge, I suggest just copying that reference and summarizing the relevant content. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty f'd up.

Start a discussion about my draft by claiming that judicial memoranda written by federal judges aren't reliable sources and then

not notify me for 90 mins (there's some sort of rule that breaks?, right), and yet
not note that I was asking you Can you back your opinion that Wikipedia does not consider judicial memoranda and court rulings to be contributing sources for notability with a citation from policy, rather than an opinion essay or template text? Reason and common sense dictate a presumption that judicial memoranda and court rulings are reliable sources. I don't see any reason per policy for the article to be considered un-encyclopedic. Opinions not grounded in policy are not a valid basis for a rejection... Hard to differentiate from Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT... or link/direct folks to the talk page where I'd asked it. @PacificDepths If you had, perhaps some of the replies here would be better backed with citation from policy. But instead Can you back your opinion that Wikipedia does not consider judicial memoranda and court rulings to be contributing sources for notability with a citation from policy, remains unanswered - by anyone. Well, except by me in the negative - I cited policy extensively in my comments on the draft page - with arguments closely tied to the wording of our policies on notability, reliable sources, independent sources, tertiary sources, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:DUE. They stand largely un-rebutted.
You also inconspicuously moved my comments around, changing their meaning my taking them out of context and putting words in my mouth - making it appear I said something I didn't say.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Haro_v._Kaiser_Foundation_Hospitals&diff=prev&oldid=1334564674. For example, it turned my Now FALSE. comment from an accurate statement into nonsense. Ditto Still true. The edit summary was misleading too.

Thanks for the heads up, @Voorts. What specifically are you saying is OR or "definitionally OR" exactly? You lost me there entirely. Can you point to a single sentence that is OR in the draft under the definition at WP:OR, which states: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." ?

Also, if you think just judges write their decisions, think again, folks. Several comments imply they do. Based on general practices in the federal court system, the decisions in Dressen v. AstraZeneca and Redd v. Amazon were surely largely drafted by law clerks (under the close supervision and direction of the judges themselves.) It is typical in federal courts for 90-95% of opinions to be drafted by clerks, overseen by the judge. So the work is more akin to a news article that has been fact checked or a journal article that has passed peer review than a SPS. https://abovethelaw.com/2016/04/should-judges-write-their-own-opinions-or-leave-drafting-to-their-law-clerks/#:~:text=Share%20Options,with%20varying%20degrees%20of%20intensity.

@NatGertler your look at the documents was cursory if you didn't see any in depth discussion of Haro.

All/voorts if you merge it into the KP article without accepting it and delete it, I believe the attribution gets lost? Please don't steal my attribution of my contribution, anyone.

- RememberOrwell (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to be merged into Kaiser Permanente#Strikes and labor disputes, let me move it; then the attribution will be correct; I'm the only article-content contributor. Holding off pending further policy-grounded discussion.RememberOrwell (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is why I suggested accepting/moving to the mainspace and then redirecting. If the redirect is left in the Draft: space, it'll probably get deleted, and then we'll lose attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect is left in the Draft: space, it'll probably get deleted, and then we'll lose attribution. No. Redirects from draft space do not get deleted, particularly if they contain substantive page history. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to come in here guns blazing. Please assume good faith and treat others civilly. Remember there's another person at the other end of the keyboard.

Regarding the substantive issues here, my view is that you cannot use judicial decisions to satisfy GNG, nor should editors cite to the law to describe or explain the law (including particular judicial decisions) on Wikipedia. Judicial decisions are primary sources because they are drafted by a participant in the litigation (the judge) based upon the record before the court (which, on a motion to dismiss for example, generally doesn't even include evidence, just the assertions in the complaint and argument of counsel). The role of clerks is to write what their judges instruct them to write (unless they're providing a recommendation to their judge based on their views). That is the opposite of a reporter or academic using their professional judgment to evaluate facts and make their own determinations.

In describing the law, editors should rely upon secondary sources, such as treatises, law reviews/journals, and books. They should not synthesize their own reading of statutes and precedent. If it were easy to determine what the law is, lawyers would not exist and I would be out of a job. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here, and we often have editors trying to build court case articles directly from opinions or even worse, the case filings from the parties themselves. We are not legal experts by definition of being a WP editor (even if you are one in real life), and we need to rely on the third-party sources, outside of plain fact (such as for SCOTUS cases, the holding, who wrote want, and in terms of joining dissents or concurrances) Masem (t) 03:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as a law clerk at both the federal trial court and appellate court levels, I would disagree with the statement that "The role of clerks is to write what their judges instruct them to write (unless they're providing a recommendation to their judge based on their views)". While it is true that the judge decides the outcome of the dispute before them, law clerks have tremendous responsibility for getting the details of the written opinion, including the cases cited, correct. I would not deem a case notable based solely on the existence of judicial memoranda citing it, but neither would I exclude that from the collected body of evidence supporting notability. BD2412 T 03:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding the role of clerks. I was using "instruct" in the sense of a solicitor instructing a barrister, rather than in the sense of micromanaging the drafting process. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the judge is signing their name to the writing, and if the judge disagrees with the clerk's reading of the law, the clerk is nonetheless required to produce the best version of the judge's view. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of any decision will certainly reflect the judge's opinion on the matter, and if the judge prefers to see different cases cited or different constructions of the facts stated, that is what will go into the opinion. However, in practice, law clerks are law clerks in the first place because they are intelligent and well-written and understand the task before them. BD2412 T 02:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That doesn't make it a non-primary source, however. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the procedural questions:

There is no rule that any/every editor be notified if you ask a relevant question elsewhere. Individual notifications are only required at certain (not all) Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
The "citation from policy" comes in two pieces: First, WP:PRIMARY says that court rulings are primary sources (in the footnote: "trial/litigation in any country"). Second, the WP:GNG (but not other notability guidelines) rejects primary sources.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RememberOrwell You're right that it would be better to link directly back to our prior conversation. I apologize for that. That said, I don't think a 90-minute delay has materially harmed you or your case.

Regarding your AFC comments, the change was inadvertent. The AFC tool for reviewers expects an AFC comment format that your comments didn't follow (some of them being unsigned). You are welcome to re-construct the discussion (and please sign the comments when you do). Discussions are much more easily managed at the draft talk page.

Lastly: I created this thread to find answer for your questions. I felt attacked when I read your comments. I think you could phrase your statements to get your point across in less inflammatory manner. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe NCORP needs a slight change to adjust for the new "Wikipedia Notability" promoting PR firm

https://www.westernslopenow.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/862079148/introducing-the-notability-company-the-first-pr-firm-built-for-wikipedia-credibility/

https://www.wane.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/862079148/introducing-the-notability-company-the-first-pr-firm-built-for-wikipedia-credibility/

The Notability Company works with companies, nonprofits, and institutions of all sizes, along with the executives and leaders connected to them. For organizations without a Wikipedia presence, the firm leads targeted media outreach to establish notability.

So we may need to beef up NCORP to give less weigh to company PR effort driven artificial notability or revise COI guidelines to require disclosure of media coverage they try to generate for the purpose of meeting NCORP. Currently, NCORP requires a minimum of one source to meet WP:AUD. Maybe revise this to require it to be a certain age to avoid company-driven media coverage effort. Another idea would be to completely make trivial coverage not count for notability. For example, hosting small charitable event like donating the use of facility and inviting local celebrities to gain media coverage. I think such coverage is rather artificial and should be properly discounted in notability evaluation. Graywalls (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We need speedier and clearer responds to PR fluffs. I sometimes find it difficult to differenciate between genuine contributors from COI / paid editors, and to revert all of their edits once I found them (which typically involves putting the company's name and other keywords into the searchbox).

I wish we can have a easier way to set up domain name filtering / monitoring - e.g., the ability for rollbackers to set up keyword filtering, or make it easier to add to a temporary edit filter; the idea being that by monitoring for / temporarily blocklisting specific org's URL, it would make the NCORP's work less effective. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 09:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is fine as it is. It already requires secondary and significant coverage, not PR fluff pieces about donating event space. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that NCORP is well in position to handle the type of sourcing this company purports ready to use to push notability. Masem (t) 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact details of how that PR firm do their thing, but seems like what they do is incubate coverage with specific aims in reliable independent sources specifically so that those sources can be then used to anchor notability on Wikipedia. I see such coverage as unnatural and there's some room for improvement to how to address it. One of those is to require companies to disclose if they used notability incubation tactic. Another would be to add local affirs clause to WP:AUD. For example, treating Boston Globe covering Boston stuff, LA Times covering LA times as local matters especially if they're in local central sections of those papers. You may have noticed a proliferation of articles about all those restaurants, hole in the wall bars/taverns in various locales. Graywalls (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. The only change we need is for Wikipedia editors to stop treating churnalism as valid sourcing. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we could all agree on what counts as churnalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this already covered by WP:INDEPENDENT? If there's reason to believe that coverage is not independent (ie. it was created by a firm paid by the corporation) then it's useless for notability purposes. That said, perhaps we should create a WP:GAMING sort of rule (or at least an essay, if INDEPENDENT already covers it) for notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are usually written under the presumption of regularity - "in a normal situation, if a subject of type X has organic coverage of type Y, that would indicate notability." If the coverage is inorganic and not genuinely independent, then the guideline may not apply; and if there's evidence a subject is trying to game the notability guidelines, that's a reason to be cautious and look at broader indicators. That said, there's a final caveat - there are things an article subject can legitimately do to produce coverage that would bring them above our notability threshold. If they do a book tour and that attracts a bunch of legitimate / genuine coverage, the fact that they did so just to get a Wikipedia article doesn't invalidate it. So it's worth thinking about what makes coverage inorganic (and I think it would probably overlap a lot with INDEPENDENT.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's gonna take 10 minutes or so to digest this but. . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAeobQL-EdU&t=869s the exact hows are not explained but they do say it's a PR effort in order to generate the type of coverage desired for meeting WP:N and presumably the resulting coverage would then be used by a Wikipedia focused public relations firm to submit an AfC, citing those "massaged" sources. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly worried about this firm for our purposes, but I do feel bad for the clients (probably mostly small businesses) that are probably going to end up paying for crappy advertorials. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One comment that combines several of the above considerations. The norm that occurs on topics where a Wikipedia presence isn't going to profit someone is to rely on naturally occurring independent coverage and where the editors haven't scoured the world for notability-related coverage and so what's in the article might be just the tip of the iceberg of what exists. When someone is going to make money by being listed, both of those things no longer exist. More so when they have deep pockets. The stricter NCORP standard is a good response to this. Folks trying to work the system for corporations are nothing new. Someone blatantly doing it takes it another step. I think ways to better analyze/enforce Ncorp would be a good thing, but I don't see where changing Ncorp would be a good thing or needed. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Goodhart's law is relevant here. When Wikipedia was establishing itself, there was a natural ecology of publicity and publicity-based coverage that we could use to judge the significance of a topic. But now that people have long since started turning that around and worked to generate coverage for themselves that could be parlayed into a Wikipedia article, maybe we should rethink whether there is some other measure of significance that we could use that cannot be so easily bought and sold. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sourcing requirements at NCORP do a very good job of both the quality of the publishing source and of the articles published to weed out promotion coverage of a commercial venture, without hampering how sources are used for other topics, with perhaps the only weak area being for exec level business people (as arguably BLP or NBIO is used instead of NCORP). Masem (t) 23:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage has been mediated through public relations firms since long before the internet existed. Whenever you read a profile of a company or an interview with a CEO in a mainstream newspaper, it's probably because a PR person reached out to the reporter and pitched them on why writing about their client would make for a good story. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RE the reference to Goodhart's law, I think you're overestimating how much these companies know or care about Wikipedia's sourcing standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many organizations and individuals achieve fame through self-promotion. Are there many businesses that avoided advertisng and marketing or elected officials who never campaigned for office?

A better approach might be to be more rigorous in enforcing notability. I have seen many articles survive AfDs despite being supported by only a few passing mentions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wish that Wikipedia's WP:N-focused editors knew more about how news coverage works. As several older editors have noted already, there has never been some pure world in which businesses sit on their fingers, and then exclaim "An article about my business? What a delightful surprise! But you shouldn't have, really; you'll make me blush. Why didn't you write about someone more deserving than little ol' me?"

Many businesses and non-profit organizations court media coverage every day of the week – literally every day of the week sometimes, with quarterly goals, scheduled projects, thematic campaigns, and so forth. It's not really usual for a very small, strictly local business (e.g., a local, independent coffee shop) to do this, but it is absolutely normal for most employers. Have a look at the print version of your local newspaper some time. Most of the local news started off as a press release, or the social media equivalent. How else did you think the reporters found out all this information? They aren't hanging out on street corners to see if a car wreck will happen in front of them. They're managing a flood of e-mail messages and social media DMs telling them about fundraising and club events (Girl Scouts are selling cookies this month, and they sent us such a cute photo), the weekly press release from each of the area schools (and the hospital and the library and the senior center), the youth sports teams (girls' basketball at East High won their first game, boys' team is playing out of town this weekend), the endless messages about local government meetings and annual reports and announcements (better get this thing about the sobriety checkpoints on page 2), the police blotter (you know, if you folks would read your newspaper, you'd have known that they were setting up sobriety checkpoints, and maybe you'd have had the sense to not drive drunk on the holiday weekend), plus that one store that keeps spamming the reporters instead of just paying for an ad. And couldn't you send that photographer to take a picture of the dress rehearsal for the community theater production, and run it the next morning, so we can sell some tickets?

Wikipedia editors decided many years ago that the editor of the newspaper/magazine/whatever was the gatekeeper we would respect. If the PR firms convince the newspaper that their client is newsworthy, then we'll accept the newspaper's decision that the subject was newsworthy. It has always been true that the results of a successful PR campaign increases the likelihood that Wikipedia editors would believe the subject is notable. The only thing that's changed here is apparently another PR firm said that out loud.

Here's something else he said out loud:

"You have to have a critical mass of media attention. It has to be in-depth. It can't be like passing mentions or you got mentioned a little here and quoted there, add it up and now you're notable. It's really got to be like multiple professional journalists need to have written about you or your brand – why you're interesting, why you're changing the game, and why you are of sufficient public interest that this encyclopedia should – Does it have a you-shaped hole, where...Wikipedia is not doing its readers a service if they don't have you in there.... We turn away 85, 90% of inquiries because they don't [meet WP:N requirements]."

It seems to me that this is the kind of PR firm that understands what we're actually looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing to consider is that the more we generally trust a source to be reliable, the less likely that source will published material they were paid to publish without any disclaimers, or at least isolate those stories to a specific section of their paper/website. You are likely not going to be able to buy into a review by the NYTimes beyond their local section, for example. So the more narrow a geographic region the publication as a whole serves the more likely they are the type that support paid attention, but that's again where NCORP's AUDiance guidance works. I also think most experienced editors that interact in the space involving commercial aspects (companies, products, etc.) can eyeball an article that was written from a purely promotional angle from one that is actually providing independent coverage. That's not to say these sources can't be used, they just need to be discarded in evaluating notability. EG: a local restaurant may get significant, truly independent coverage about their success that alone meets WP:N, while a local paper covers the history of the restaurant, in which case that's fine. Masem (t) 05:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's being talking about isn't buying space in a news outlet. You pay the PR company to tell news outlets about your business, but the PR company doesn't pay the news outlets. There is no difference between big/little newspapers in this regard. Tiny local newspapers in most of the world would find your accusations rather insulting.

@Masem, if you made that statement about a specific publication, it could even be construed as libel against the business, because you're alleging that news outlets break the laws of most countries (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914#Deception §5 in the US, and most countries have something similar). Please try to remember this time: It's a bad idea to issue sweeping, unfounded accusations that businesses routinely break the law.

And, in this case, it's irrelevant. The reason WP:AUD exists is because a small local newspaper is likely to be indiscriminate (covering everything in the small town), not because they're corrupt. If a gas station opens in a big city, it may or may not appear in the city's newspaper. On the other hand, if a gas station ever opens in Mulberry, Kansas (home to the newspaper with the smallest certified circulation in the middle of the US), it'd be front-page news – but not because the gas station owner paid the newspaper to write about them. It'd be front-page news because (a) the newspaper doesn't have very many pages and (b) that would be a big deal for a community that's accustomed to driving at least 7 miles/12 km to the nearest gas station. The problem isn't corrupt small-town newspaper editors. Nobody's getting paid (except the PR consultants). The problem is that a small business, in a small setting, can end up being a big fish in a little pond. Even with strictly neutral, scrupulously independent news outlets, adding gas station #209 to a big city is boring, and adding gas station #1 to Smallville is Big News. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should contents from sources like https://www.latimes.com/travel be considered local for WP:AUD purposes? Current NCORP only says "at least one source" should pass AUD. Maybe this should be raised to two? This will prevent the proliferation of articles about dive bars and restaurants citing Travel & Dining sections of the local/regional paper in local capacity from being used as the sole source supplemented by Eater.com and local alt-weeklies to satisfy NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of a regional newspaper should not be considered local for AUD purposes, as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement – where the Los Angeles Times is a listed example – and again in User:WhatamIdoing/Audience requirement, for anyone who would benefit from an explanation that uses three times as many words.

NB that we are not trying to "prevent the proliferation of articles". We are trying to prevent the creation of doomed permanstubs (=articles that will never have more than about 10 sentences/250 words) and articles that cannot comply with NPOV (e.g., because there are no independent sources at all; because all of the independent sources combined contain so little information that, if using them alone, we could barely write more than "this thing exists"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video includes two PR firms. The one I'm talking about is the one specifically designed to massage media coverage tailored to gain press coverage contoured around 'satisfying WP:NCORP' Should there be a new disclosure rule requiring companies to reveal such publicity effort specifically to meet Wiki notability? All those articles about average restaurants and dive bars should show how non-notable places end up here. There are so many pages about them. Graywalls (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough coverage to write a decent encyclopedia article, both in terms of length (=could be longer than a stub, if someone went to the trouble) and in terms of content (=most of the article could be written from media coverage instead of the business's own website) then "All those articles about average restaurants" aren't "non-notable places".

There is nothing about notability that rejects "average" businesses. Notability does not mean "important" or "interesting". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with NCORP is editors ignoring it at AfDs and failing to recognise trivial coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are they genuinely ignoring it? Or do different editors merely have different ideas of what constitutes "trivial coverage"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen at AfD recently, a lot of editors don't seem to understand it's a higher standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are these mostly newer editors? If not, then it's possible that community support for the NCORP approach is slowly fading. Using the analogy of "more Catholic than the pope", the community's guidelines cannot be more stringent than the community in the long run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be reying on news coverage for notability. A few sentences in an independent reliable book is worth any number of newspaper articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations, and their products, CEOs and founders, should be required to have sources that a reliable, in depth, and contextualise their role with respect to their competitors. A source that is written with perspective as if within arms reach, or with telescopic focus, and reads as it the topic stands alone on a hill, should be assumed to be native advertising. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that we should assume illegal conduct on the part of newspapers, magazines, and other reputable publications. Unlabeled native advertising is illegal. We are therefore extremely unlikely to encounter unlabeled native advertising in any reputable publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations, and their products, CEOs and founders, should be required to have sources that are reliable, in-depth, and contextualise their role with respect to their competitors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that organizations, products, and people (business-associated or otherwise) should be required to have sources that are reliable and sufficiently in-depth that we can write an encyclopedia article. I do not agree that these sources must contextualize them specifically with respect to any competitors. That's nice (and frequently available), but other forms of secondary source material are IMO adequate. For example, I'd accept the absolute statement "Wonderpam is better than nothing"; you are requiring a relative statement like "Wonderpam is better/worse than the other similar products". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who said “specifically”?

should contextualise generally/broadly with respect to competitors.

Competitors must be named, but not any specific competitor specifically named.

It is a feature of undisclosed advertising that it names the product and does not name any competitor.
"Wonderpam is better/worse than the other similar products"

would not pass.
"We compared three products currently on sale, Wonderram, Wonderpam and Wondersam. Wonderpam is better/worse than the other similar products"

would pass this additional test for minimum contextualisation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Who said “specifically”?" You specified it.

I don't see why secondary source material for commercial products has to be limited to comparisons against competitors. Imagine that Wonderpam has intolerable side effects, such that the cost/benefit analysis is upside down. Do we really need "and BTW penicillin doesn't have these side effects" to somehow validate the analysis? An analysis is secondary source material regardless of whether that analysis is against absolute criteria (e.g., death rate compared to no treatment) or against relative performance (e.g., death rate compared to another treatment).

Again: "It is a feature of undisclosed advertising" that it is illegal. I thought you were going to stop accusing reliable sources of illegal behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say secondary source material has to be limited. That would be stupid.

Corporations, and their products, CEOs and founders, should be required to have sources that contextualise their role with respect to their competitors.

It’s a good test for behavioural independence.

”illegal” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. And even if you’re right, it’s irrelevant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's so irrelevant that you keep bringing it up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think undisclosed non-independence of a source focusing on a CORP topic is a concern?

Do you think that anything about WP:CORP should be tightened? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that non-independence is a concern for all types of notability. I don't think that organizations and CEOs are inherently more concerning than pop music and actors.

I think that worrying about the "undisclosed non-independence" of an apparently reliable source solely on the basis that the source says something positive, or doesn't mention similar products, or mentions similar products but says this one is better, is a problem. Mentioning competitors is a bad test for independence, because a non-independent source could take money to run down a competitor's product just as easily as they could take money to hype up the advertiser's product. For example: Ordinary newspapers are and should be assumed to be independent of what they write about. If we find information suggesting otherwise (as we have, e.g., for Nigerian newspapers), then we adjust our approach for the affected sources, but we don't assume that every newspaper that fails to mention a competitor is secretly taking money under the table.

I think there are things about CORP that could be clarified, but I don't think it needs either significant tightening or significant loosening. I think that some editors might need to adjust their expectations about how many articles about for-profit businesses would be suitable and appropriate. For example, I believe that there are over 50,000 publicly traded corporations in the world right now, and that we have articles on less than a quarter of them. Publicly traded corporations usually (though not quite always) exceed the NCORP standards. If that's at all representative of our coverage of organizations and products, then we probably need to quadruple our coverage of businesses. If an editor were thinking that we already have "too many", I think they're wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-independence is not an equal a concern for all types of notability.

Organizations and CEOs are inherently more concerning than pop music and actors because they have multiple staff with publicity, communications and outreach responsibilities. And often these staff have little specific training, a budget, and time pressures.

"undisclosed non-independence" is of central concern, because it is what makes it hard to tell whether a proffered GNG-compliant source is indeed independent. I've been looking hard at this for a long time. A recent intense example is Winston Weinberg. An abundance of seemingly independent interviews were proffered, all to be rejected by experienced NPR, AFC and DRV Wikipedians. Looking through all the interviews, I read them all, I note that they do not contextualise the CEO or his company in terms of context with respect to his competitive peers. I call it a tell for non-independence, a non-independent promotional piece highlights the product and doesn't name the competition. Would you prefer me to write "I call it a tell for a source that experienced Wikipedians will reject"?

"a non-independent source could take money to run down a competitor's product just as easily as they could take money to hype up the advertiser's product"? It is harder to run down a competitor because you will upset them and they might come back at you, creating noise that muddies your image and connects it to the competitor. If you make an error you might get sued. To hype up your own product is easy, because you know your own products facts and details, and even if someone complains, it generates more publicity you your name and brand.

You don't think CORP requires significant tightening? OK. That places you in one camp of the debate, and of course it means you are going to criticise every mechanism of tightening.

Undisclosed non-independence is rampant. I supply a news paper staff member with a story and the news paper staff publish it under their name. My payment is the supply of material for their next issue. I doubt that it meets any effective test of "illegal". All facts are checked, this promotion is not about misrepresenting any fact, I supply evidence of every fact. This is so common that no one is ashamed of the "pros" section having no corresponding "cons" section. No one thinks to wonder why there are no mentions of alternative approaches that don't use my company's products. "Photo supplied".
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We get a lot of spammy articles about pop music and actors, quite possibly because they have "multiple staff with publicity, communications and outreach responsibilities". Marketing is a huge part of the entertainment industry.

The problem with "undisclosed non-independence" is that we end up with editors who see a commie under every bed. I just know it when I see it, right? And if you can't see it, then you must be stupid, because it's obvious to me, and I can't imagine any reason why editors reject most WP:Interviews, except for the fact that they must somehow secretly be paid advertisements. Make a note: Interviews with a subject, about that subject, are mostly not independent of the subject because it's the subject talking about himself in the interview. It's not because the interviewer or the publication is non-independent. It's because the information about the subject is coming straight from the horse's mouth, in his very own unchanged, un-fact-checked words.

Any sales person worth their commission check can tell you how their product compares to their competition. Running down the competition consists in choosing which facts to compare, without making up lies about anybody. For example: Which is better, Wikipedia or Britannica? If I want to promote Wikipedia, I say that it's better because it's bigger and faster at producing articles on current events, and I keep my mouth shut about poop vandalism and the lack of expert oversight and the NSFW subjects. If I want to promote Britannica, I say the opposite: Britannica is known for its expert authors, it's not stuffed full of articles about porn films, and random people on the internet can't vandalize the pages. I keep my mouth shut about the Britannica being smaller and not covering current events. It's easy to run down a competitor.

I have a long history of tightening CORP. I haven't opposed "every mechanism of tightening" in the past, and I see no reason to expect that to change in the future. My interest in CORP is less about tight/loose questions and more about clear/confusing wording and fair/distorted application.

If you don't have evidence of ghost writing – actual evidence, not just being fearful that everything must be, because there's no logical explanation for writing something a different way than you would write it – then we shouldn't be acting on your hunch. You can believe there's a commie under every bed, but that doesn't mean you're right.

"Photo supplied" usually means that there's a "Media" section on the org's website with some photos they've pre-licensed for use. It doesn't indicate any sort of collusion, and it's no different than a film critic running a publicity photo. It doesn't make the film critic beholden to the film studio.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy marketing is easy to spot. Undisclosed non-independence, by staff, employed by a single company, is harder.

A commie under every bed. I agree. That’s why I am looking for objective measures that a new AfC or NPReviewer can use. Do the best sources (I think WP:THREE should be a new article/draft instruction) contextualise? That might be hard. Do the proffered GNG compliant sources name the competition? Some of them? Don’t use the word “specific”, no “specific” competitor needs naming. We must return to WT:Interviews.

You “ haven't opposed "every mechanism of tightening" in the past”. Fair point. I meant, if you don’t agree that further tightening is needed, you’ll probably be very critical of every suggested new test for tightening. I agree, WP:CORP is already the tightest of the SNGs. Re confusing language? That would be “notability”. Beutler suggests “eligibility”.

I have proof of ghost writing, but it’s not for sharing.

I don’t suggest acting in a hunch. I suggest that “contextualisation” should be required for CORP-level GNG sources. We will be talking about a company of dubious Wikipedia-Notability. A company that no independent other has every written about. What does it do? What does it do different to others?

Photo supplied. I’ve seen plenty of real journalism and plenty of fake journalism. Real journalists take their own photos. Submitted articles come with photos supplied. Not a hard rule, but an observation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Depth" seems a matter of some uncertainty; perhaps, your "context" is trying to address that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“In-depth” is already there, or well expected. Passing mentions are understood to not be sufficient, no matter what the number of them.

In the Weinberg interviews, they superficially meet every test, including depth, and yet they were resoundingly rejected. I guess I am not really wanting to tighten CORP as in restrict what can be included, but to write a better explanation of what sources are usually accepted, for the benefit of editors wanting to make new articles. “Don’t use interviews” is a budding proposal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that you want context. We all want context; context is what encyclopedia articles provide.

The problem is that the only kind of context you said you would accept is a source that would contextualise their role with respect to their competitors. What if they source contextualizes them in a different way? "The company donates all of its after-tax profits to charity" is important and encyclopedic context, but it's not context with respect to their competitors. "Created the biggest Superfund site in New Jersey" is context, but it's not context with respect to their competitors. Why are you insisting that the only acceptable form of context is about their competitors? The context we care about should be whatever context the reliable sources give us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged problem is that the WP:CORP guideline does not match the stringency evident at AfD. Let alone AfC.

I suggest that for a WP:CORP article, the GNG requirement of two sources should be further requiring both of those two sources to contextualise the topic with respect to its competitors.

This is not required of all sources, only the two best for demonstrating notability.

An otherwise non-Wikipedia-notable company depends on a source that reports that “donates all of its after-tax profits to charity”? I don’t think this is good enough to put the article over the threshold for inclusion.

I am not insisting on anything. I am responding to a talk page thread with an idea. “Only acceptable form of context is about their competitors” is an awful phraseology that I would not support.

I suggest competitor context as a CORP test for two sources. The absence of competitor context in a questionable source for a non-notable CORP topic is an objective test.

Is it your position that WP:CORP does not require further tightening? You think that Wikipedia is missing tens of thousands of publicly traded corporations? If so, then obviously you will not support my suggestion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggest that for a WP:CORP article, the GNG requirement of two sources should be further requiring both of those two sources to contextualise the topic with respect to its competitors."

"“Only acceptable form of context is about their competitors” is an awful phraseology that I would not support."

One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others). Either you want the guideline to be "requiring" this (your word), or you "would not support" (also your words) a requirement for sources to contextualize the subject wrt to competitors. Which is it? It cannot be both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are unclear with “sources”. Some sources or all sources.

I suggest, not want, that two sources, the two GNG sources, be required to contextualize the subject wrt to competitors. This does not extend to other sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the reason that an organization or product is notable has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of any competitors, so it should not be "required to contextualize the subject wrt to competitors" in any sources whatsoever because competitors either don't exist or aren't WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is nearly always true for businesses involved in creative productions like television, film, and video game studios (but not distributors). Its the quality of their work that draws non-routine, NCORP-acceptable sourcing without any discussion of competition out there. Masem (t) 01:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The non-existence of competitors is a competitor-contextualisation. If it’s verifiable, I would likely be !voting “keep”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what if the non-existence of competitors is so utterly unimportant that no reliable source bothered to even mention the non-existence of competitors, and instead, all the reliable sources go straight on to the things that actually matter about that organization? Is that organization now "non-notable" according to your proposal, simply because the reliable sources thought that trying "to contextualise the topic with respect to its competitors" was a waste of ink? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for an example to illustrate this extraordinary example? A borderline notable corporation where no sources mention that it is unique? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with an effective monopoly would do. Think about the manufacturer of a patented product with limited or no substitution options. Think about businesses that have been granted legal monopolies. In most of England and Wales, ordinary tap water is now brought to you by for-profit businesses. There are no competitors; your choice is either to do business with them, or to not have running water at your house. So why would anyone bother writing about what the price of water could be, if only you lived in a different town? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“Effective monopoly” would be sufficient competitor-contextualisation for me.

You don’t support the idea, and neither does anyone else it seems, so why your intense interest in drilling it down? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the Ncorp guideline is sufficiently tight. Tightening of the overall process is needed so that meeting ncorp is actually enforced. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue with that is who turns up to AfD and whether they take NCORP seriously or not. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does taking NCORP seriously look like at AFD for an organization? Is it about tending to be exclusionary in general, or about something specific? I have seen, e.g., editors at AFD making up non-existent rules (like: If the source says anything about a corporate merger, than that's always a case of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage", even if the source is an entire book about how this merger is particularly important or unusual). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Wikipedia has a lot of serious problems, and this isn't one of them. Probably the one practical issue is the large amount work that is required to do a NPP or AFD properly when there are a lot of references put in just to have a lot of references which need close scrutiny, and cases where that large amount of work often isn't done. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) § Reality TV returnees who won just once and re-participated. George Ho (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]