Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Street Bird


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

William Street Bird

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG, as all but one of the sources are either promotional, from the venue or largely an interview. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio,  and Australia. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: This is a pointy nomination and I am being harassed by the nominator, an editor that has recently been trawling through my contributions: (1), (2), (3), (4)
 * I am not opposed to the idea that this venue arguably does not meet GNG guidelines (personally I view SIGCOV to have been met here, but I can see how it might be arguable either way); but this AfD nomination should come from another user Jack4576 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

*Delete No SIGCOVAdler3 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – above is a source assessment table of the article's sources I prepared. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 03:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per my source assessment table and the fact that I can't find any SIGCOV sources online. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG as per Nythar's assessment. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment More sources added to article's talk page, including this SIGCOV source, and a review of a performance by Stella Donnelly. Jack4576 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IsolatedNation is not a reliable source, and none of the sources you added to the article's talk page demonstrate SIGCOV; they are instead very promotional. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IsolatedNation is a well-established modern perth culture magazine and is a reliable source. Your claim to the contrary is bizzare. Jack4576 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At least several of the IsolatedNation references you provided are written as first-person narratives and are heavily opinionated. Also, this search of IsolatedNation in Wikipedia reveals only a single instance of the use of their website as a source. That article is William Street Bird. I'm not enthusiastic about accepting poorly written, heavily opinionated, PROMO articles as reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. To add to all this, those sources don't even significantly cover "the Bird." Nythar  (💬-🍀) 08:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems WP:SPS per their aboutpage: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's a business, but not a notable one. Fails WP:NCORP.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Selection of four sources:  The review notes: "Is it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh. Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle. ... But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand. ... Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red."  The review notes: "Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard."  The website's independent editorial policy notes: "We do not seek or accept payment from the cafes, restaurants, bars and shops listed in the Directory – inclusion is at our discretion. Venue profiles are written by independent freelancers paid by Broadsheet." The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs."  There is editorial oversight according to https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/about-usInternet Archive. Suz Tucker serves as editorial director. The review provides 249 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years." </li> <li>Additional sources that contribute less to notability:<ol> <li> The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows."</li> <li> The article provides 66 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us."</li> <li> Western Independent is a newspaper run by Curtin University journalism students, so it contributes less to notability. The article notes: "The William Street Bird is a small, unassuming venue, sitting in a row of stores at the mouth of Northbridge. The Bird has served as a live music venue and bar for more than a decade after being opened in 2010. Current owner Kabir Ramasary, who bought the venue in 2017, says his own positive experiences at The Bird influenced his purchase. ... Aside from its bar and kitchen, The Bird hosts a range of entertainment, from live music across genres to festival events such as Soul Alphabet to drag shows. It is also famous for Monday Milk, one of the few opportunities in Perth for new bands to have the stage."</li> <li> The article notes that the new live music bar in Northbridge called the Bridge was owned by The William Street Bird owner Mike O'Hanlon. The article does not contribute much to notability, so I am including it in this section.</li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Street Bird to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Not sure we can count Concrete Playground as having editorial oversight just because they list an "editorial director". Their "Editorial inquiries" says To pitch events, venues or news ideas, please send an email containing all relevant details and images to the editorial inbox in your city: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland and Wellington. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , you have raised a good point about a flaw in my reasoning, so I did some more research on Concrete Playground. I found Concrete Playground's editorial policyInternet Archive Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:<ol><li>Its editor is Samantha Teague.</li><li>"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"</li><li>"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."</li><li>"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."</li><li>"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."</li><li>"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."</li><li>"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."</li><li>"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."</li></ol> Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1). Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Every one of these sources consists of WP:ROUTINE coverage, published simply for the sake of publishing something. None of these prove that the Bird is notable, or that it stands out from other venues. If you search deeply enough, you could find a source for almost any building in existence; that is the reason why this large amount of sources does not automatically prove the subject passes the GNG. Therefore, the subject lacks SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't consider venue reviews to be routine coverage that falls under WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Notability (events). These reviews meet the three items listed under Notability (organizations and companies): "be significant", "be independent", and "be reliable". Cunard (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and magazines usually have a set minimum number of articles they must publish in a given period of time. If a subject relies entirely on those types of articles, the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues). Most of the sources you listed above are too short and others lack SIGCOV, containing only a few sentences describing the Bird. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment – above is a review of the sources you've provided. The sources that come off as ROUTINE are listed as lacking SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not slavishly following 's analysis, but I note that "The Sunday Times" here, first source, is a Western Australia local paper and this appears to be a brief Sunday supplement write up. The others also appear to be in a similar vein don't they? This does not meet significant coverage per WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard’s excellent analysis. like other recent AfD’s, this pushes the windows of ROUTINE and SIGCOV in a strongly deletionist direction. As for the comment that the Sunday Times is merely a “local Western Australian” newspaper: our notability guidelines require reliable sources, not big sources. Even it it did require big sources, I would think a Perth newspaper with 168,000 subscribers would apply even if merely Western Australian. See The Sunday Times (Western Australia). — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source you are referring to by no means qualifies as "significant coverage." Nythar  (💬-🍀) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The point about the paper being local to WA, and the article being a Sunday supplement article is that this is not, therefore, significant coverage of a notable business but routine coverage of a local one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How in the hell is it "by no means" significant coverage in the source you just linked to? It isn't just a trivial mention. 100% of the coverage in that source is about the topic. How don't you figure that is significant and more than a mere mention? Huggums537 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537: See WP:CORPDEPTH. I posted the entire article below if you want to examine it quickly. According to CORPDEPTH:
 * If you examine the article, you'll find that it consists entirely of trivial information. In fact, that article contains almost no information suitable for an article, other than the fact that the venue exists. You can try that out if you're not sure: try writing a non-PROMO, non-trivial, non-brief, non-SYNTH article using that source alone. It's not possible. Therefore, it isn't possible to write an article longer than a very brief, incomplete stub using that source. It is composed entirely of trivial coverage. That means it fails SIGCOV according to CORPDEPTH. You can examine the other sources this way, and you'll find that none of them contain SIGCOV. (The university paper source is somewhat in-depth but is very local, and therefore fails SIGCOV per #Audience.) — Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you are confused. Sources don't have to pass any kind of a notability test, only Wikipedia articles do. A single source doesn't have to be able to support a whole article all by itself to be used on Wikipedia, and you should give a severe tongue lashing to whomever planted that dumb idea into your head. Huggums537 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537 What on earth are you talking about? Sources don't pass notability tests; they need to be acceptable according to the GNG so that the article subject passes the GNG. This is entirely about SIGCOV. A source isn't SIGCOV if it is entirely trivial coverage. Significant coverage != trivial coverage. Using a single SIGCOV source, one should be able to, according to policy, produce an article that isn't horrendously brief. Meaning there is enough information that is "significant" (e.g. relatively detailed history, current owners, neutral analysis of the venue's effects on people living there, etc.) Can you prove that The Sunday Times' article contains anything but trivial coverage? Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in SIGCOV says a source has to be able to support an article in order to be used. Period. Huggums537 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop making up rules. Huggums537 (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Argue with CORPDEPTH: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. To add to this, consider the fact that any organization or company that has at least one SIGCOV source (assuming it is both reliable and independent) may have an article. But if that "SIGCOV" source alone can only result in a single-sentence stub, then it isn't SIGCOV. I'm not making up rules; refrain from accusing me of this, and communicate civilly. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So what? Nothing you quoted at CORPDEPTH says the coverage has to come from a single source! Only that the subject has enough coverage to write more than a stub. Just because a single source might have enough coverage to support an article doesn't mean the source can't be used or isn't SIGCOV if it can't support an article. You could have multiple sources that each don't have enough coverage to support an article on their own merit, but do have enough coverage to support the topic, and when combined they all have enough coverage to support an article. Nothing in what you quoted says anything about coming from a single source. If it doesn't say it, then you are coming to your own conclusion. In other words, you are making it up. Conflating SIGCOV with CORPDEPTH and vice versa. You have already indicated elsewhere in this conversation that your intentions are to run us through hypothetical experiments on your theories about this, and I have already asked before to please stop, so I'll ask one last time to please keep your experimental theories to yourself. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think sources can collectively constitute significant coverage indicates underlying WP:CIR issues with your understanding of relevant guidelines. WP:SIRS specifically states "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability"; one of the criteria is "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other, and each source must meet all the criteria, one of which is SIGCOV. You're forcing me to need to clarify such obvious points, that my replies here seem to be "badgering." Anyway, we've gotten past that point; SIGCOV is only determined individually here. Moving on, the problem with regards to the 8 sources is that they do not contain "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why do I think this? I think this because (and I hope you'll stop belittling my position), if an article like the one I listed below cannot have meaningful, useful information derived from it which can be used in a Wikipedia article, then it does not qualify as "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." Why is this the case? If you read through the source below, you'll see that all the information is trivial and nothing there can be used in a Wikipedia article. It is superficial in coverage, reading more like a PROMO than a neutral article. Again, I do not know why you find it difficult to understand this. You're focusing on minor points that you think I got wrong rather than the bigger picture I'm painting. In addition to all this, your tone is quite condescending. You accuse me of failing to understand guidelines even though you (as I have demonstrated) do not understand this guideline. Adding to this, my experiment wasn't imaginary nonsense; noting once again that SIGCOV is determined individually per SIRS, if you can't use any part of a source in an article (since it focuses on drink prices and very minor trivialities), then it doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. These trivialities include "this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday" and "A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass)" and "The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol" and "The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails" and "the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all" and "the bartenders’ smiles are genuine." How is the coverage significant if it focuses on such trivialities? Well, it isn't. It fails the "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" part of SIRS. The rest of the sources also fail this point (literally try checking them out yourself). Before you decide to respond, please rethink your positions and comments carefully, because even I am not entirely sure I understand what you're arguing for. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 14:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My competency with understanding of relevant guidelines is just fine since I can quote policy that says exactly verbatim to back up my understanding of it at WP:NBASIC where it says, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability..., while I have grave CIR concerns about your interpretations and understandings of basic guidance since I have told you multiple times the guidance does not say exactly what you are trying to imply it does. Sure, each source must be evaluated independently, and sure each source must have more than a trivial mention (SIGCOV), but you do not seem to be grasping the fact that it still doesn't say anywhere that a single source must support the notability an article. Having significant coverage (i.e. being more than a trivial mention}, and "being notable" are two different things. Your inability to distinguish the two is becoming frustrating and tiresome. If you don't understand the extremely basic concept that what SIRS is trying to explain is that ok source 1 has enough coverage to go toward notability [SIGCOV], source 2 has enough coverage to go toward notability [SIGCOV] etc, etc, then you are falling far too short of the basic understanding needed to edit here. Huggums537 (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 18:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Updated16:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...You know that this is an AfD on a venue, not a person, right? And that NBASIC is exclusively for people? JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I know that, but at least I'm getting the principles I'm talking about from somewhere, and I'm not pulling them out of my ass. I would like to see the other editor show me something that they can quote verbatim from some guidance anywhere as I did, and not pulling ideas from thin blue air or taking guidance and misconstruing as they have been. If they were able, then I would gladly shut the fuck up. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, each source must be, secondary, independent, reliable, and be more than a trivial mention, not be notable in its own right, and each source must be evaluated to meet this standard in order to qualify as a contributing source toward notability. When you are evaluating the SIGCOV criteria, you are not evaluating for notability, you are evaluating for SIGCOV to see if it is more than a trivial mention. If it isn't obvious that evaluating SIGCOV is evaluating SIGCOV, and not evaluating something else, then perhaps you should consider any one of the other 4 criteria such as the reliable sourcing criteria and imagine how weird it would be to say that evaluating a reliable source requires the source to contribute to notability before it can be considered for notability, because that is essentially the same argument you are making, and trying to require for the SIGCOV criteria. It is absolutely absurd and ridiculous! If the SIGCOV criteria must follow the guidance the way you are incessantly insisting that it does, then so must the others follow the same rule. If they are not able to do that without making any sense then it follows that isn't what it means. Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
 * This is the requirement for each source contributing to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * :Regurgitating what has already been said is not helpful in the least. I see nowhere whatsoever where it says that is a requirement for each source. My read on it is that the requirement is for depth of coverage on each subject per the sentence that specifically says it; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.. Only after it mentions this does it continue on to describe what deep or significant coverage is, and finally ending by saying that such coverage [of the subject] goes beyond mentions (plural) and announcements (plural) (That means more than one announcement in case you didn't catch that), to make it (obviousy) possible to write more than a stub. Huggums537 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I only see one small sentence in the front saying anything about a source, and it has nothing to do with contributing to notability as you suggested. It is also talking about the depth of coverage on a subject by a source, and saying it must be considered, as it should. Huggums537 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The opening line considers the depth of coverage of the subject by a source; why would the succeeding sentences that go on to describe what "depth" means now switch to being about the aggregate coverage across multiple sources? Why would the guideline repeatedly emphasize that and then immediately redefine "significant coverage" as a cumulative product achieved through multiple sources? That would be utterly useless guidance for determining whether any given source is sufficiently significant to contribute to org notability, and would directly contradict all the other places where SIGCOV is described in relation to a single source, e.g.  Do you also believe the other key criteria for a SIGCOV SIRS are distributive just because the sections on "independent sources", "reliable sources", and "secondary sources" use "sources" instead of (awkwardly) speaking in the singular the whole time? JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeez. I can't even get out of a debate because you want to argue the point so bad you're even willing to respond to a struckout comment. Thank heaven I at least got a little nap in. Nobody is trying to redefine SIGCOV. It is clearly defined where SIRS links to it in the primary criteria. WP:ORGCRIT says, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. and then it goes on to tell you that These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline. If you go to SIGCOV it plainly tells you exactly what is meant for the "Significant coverage" threshold: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. More than a trivial mention is good enough to pass SIRS for each individual source. The issue about CORPDEPTH is a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance that really has to be talking about the overall notability of the subject. If you are attempting to mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH in ways that contradict the "parent" guidance by trying to say that the individual sources they are talking about from SIRS now have to be able to write their own articles in the way they are talking about should be done for all subjects in CORPDEPTH, then you are violating the fundamental ideas of SIGCOV that they must be more than trivial mentions, and also the principle of WP:NNC that notability doesn't govern content because if you really want to try talking about using a single source, then you don't really have any other choice but to talk about violating that since the only content you would have regarding notability is coming from just that source. It's really very hard to say you aren't using notability to govern content if you are just using the one source for notability. To make matters worse, you would (confusingly) be claiming the same guidance for both, but really violating it in two or more different areas of it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I started my reply before you struck your comments out.
 * NCORP works within GNG to tell us what type of coverage is considered non-trivial for companies and therefore contributory towards notability. You cannot meet GNG and fail NCORP unless you apply an interpretation of SIGCOV or independence that is at odds with the guidance at NCORP.
 * CORPDEPTH is not a totally separate thing in a completely different part of the guidance from SIRS, it comes directly after SIRS under the same Primary criteria section following an extremely straightforward format: SIRS explains how to apply ORGCRIT by stating the four SIRS criteria, then immediately after expands on each of those requirements with details and examples. The "S" in SIRS is expanded upon starting with the CORPDEPTH section and ending with ILLCON.
 * This is how I and I'm guessing pretty much everyone else here reads CORPDEPTH (bolded clarifiers):
 * JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you're gonna respond here cause you are so much like me you just can't help it, but I really wanna get out of this off topic conversation so I'm gonna let you have the last word so just please don't ask me any questions okay? Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - usually best achieved by not saying anything more. Anyway, the reason someone might "mix SIRS with CORPDEPTH" is that these are sections of the NCORP guidance, and if you don't understand that guidance, you should not be commenting on AfD's in this area. The meta discussion, if you wish to pursue it, is better placed in an RfC somewhere on the guidance (not that I would recommend that). What matters here is that this article fails against NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks a whole heck of a lot for that comment. Now you've forced me to have to justify commenting here after you just advised me that all I have to do is not reply if I don't want to be involved in the discussion. That's just great. Anyway, it should be fairly obvious to anyone that just because two different things appear in the same page and on the same guideline does not mean that they have to be talking about the same thing. I just provided you a perfectly good example of this above with NNC. The notability guideline deals with the idea about whether a topic should have its own article or not while NNC is about the fact that article content itself is not regulated by notability guidelines. Two different things on the same page in the same guideline. Now, please stop making personal remarks about me so I can leave this discussion in peace because I already apologized for the ones that I made about you and I'm going to go back and strike them as well as the ones I made about Nythar as soon as I get the opportunity. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Venue reviews are not routine sources. is a 285-word review.  is a 347-word review.  is a 149-word review.  is a 249-word review. These reviews are all about William Street Bird and all meet Notability (organizations and companies). These reviews are both functionally and intellectually independent from William Street Bird, so they meet Notability (organizations and companies). The Sunday Times had a circulation of over 250,000 in 2013 and is distributed throughout the state of Western Australia. It meets Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source". Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Notability (organizations and companies) only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And yours was a 217 word comment! Western Australia has a population of 2.8 million with the vast majority (2.1 million) living in Perth. The review is from the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section. This is routine coverage of a local business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Certain things that are average, normal, or run-of-the-mill do not "stand out" from other similar things. You claim these sources demonstrate SIGCOV, and I disagree because the sources don't prove that this venue is more notable than any other non-notable venue. SIGCOV is not as simple as "a two-hundred-word review exists." WP:NCORP states that local coverage is insignificant coverage (meaning the subject is not notable enough for an international audience). Every source you've provided above either falls under local coverage or is simply too short to be worth counting towards SIGCOV. And like Sirfurboy said, the population of Western Australia mostly resides in Perth (79% I believe), so that newspaper you cited can be considered to be local coverage. SIGCOV sources would examine the Bird more thoroughly, and would prove the Bird is notable beyond its local scene. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) does not require companies to "stand out". The Sunday Times is a newspaper distributed throughout the state of Western Australia so meets Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source". Cunard (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the article you're referring to:
 * What part of this significantly describes the Bird? This is one of the most non-SIGCOV sources I have seen on Wikipedia. Where's the thorough analysis/description? All I see is an advertisement with no information pertaining to the venue's history. Besides the nonexistent SIGCOV, this article claims the Bird is an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, indicating that it is local coverage. The article also falls under the category of "Perth, Australia", which can be seen at the top. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 08:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * assume you were asked to write an article based on this source alone. After all, you claim it significantly covers the subject, so assuming that there are no other sources available from which you may derive information, and since this source's coverage is "significant", you should at least be able to write an article that sufficiently describes the subject without any PROMO influences. Now re-review The Sunday Times' article and try to find meaningful information that isn't trivial. (You can try doing this with any of the other sources you provided, and you'll see that there's hardly a bit of non-trivial coverage in most of them.) Nythar  (💬-🍀) 09:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to insist that you stop this off topic hypothetical line of query and cease the badgering of other editors with experimental theories that are not grounded in any policy. SIGCOV does not require a source to be able to support an article, and you need to stop advancing this line of argument now. You are pushing it too far. Huggums537 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying this because the line of experimental questioning has become disruptive and irritating. I'm done being experimented on. [Please stop experimenting on us.] Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 12:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per the assessment of Cunard. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Above you say: . This is incorrect. From WP:SIRS:"Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
 * Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
 * Be completely independent of the article subject.
 * Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
 * Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability."
 * Moreover, under significance, the WP:PRODUCTREV guidance states: The reviews must be published outside of purely local [...] interest publications. Articles in the "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)" section of a paper, telling you the price of drinks in a club are local interest, clearly. This is the quality of the sources, and per policy, these sources do not pass the required notability test, and per there is no way an encyclopaedia article can be written from these sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You took my comment out of context. It wasn't intended to be a single statement alone, but meant to make a point to the other editor about how a single source doesn't have to support an article. If you want to pick out whatever part of other peoples words might be technically incorrect, then please find somebody else to debate with. <S>And please, drop the non-policy based argument that an article can't be written with that source. It isn't required to, and believe it or not, people can actually really get in trouble for not listening when someone tells them they are getting out of line because they do sometimes make a big deal about Competence is required here. Huggums537 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Talking about out of context. The point is that an encyclopaedic article cannot be written based on any of the sources thus far, as none provide anything that show why this subject is notable. And WP:CORPDEPTH is policy, as are the rest of those guidelines I cited above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now you said these sources, not that source. My apologies. Huggums537 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should retract the per Nythar bit since they were talking about a single source. That's why I got confused... Huggums537 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now you said these sources, not that source. My apologies. Huggums537 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should retract the per Nythar bit since they were talking about a single source. That's why I got confused... Huggums537 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. That's enough to meet GNG. (Braces for badgering). Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The source analyses by Nythar above are thorough and accurate. NCORP is extremely straightforward and unambiguous that each source must be SIGCOV SIRS to count toward notability; editors unfamiliar with this guideline should not be !voting on NCORP AfDs. It's also very clear from the guideline that local sources do not contribute to notability either, so all the reviews from Perth must be dismissed (and anything that lists the literal address and/or phone number of the venue is certainly local). Coverage derived from pitches, like the Concrete Playground, are also not independent. That leaves us with basically nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I would personally be lenient about local sources if I were drafting a guideline, but I'm not the one who wrote the guideline, and telling you the price of drinks in a club (as wrote) is not the kind of coverage that establishes noteworthiness. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. JoelleJay said what I would have, just more concisely. I'm even sympathetic to XOR's view that local newspapers "should" count for something. But there's really nothing here but promotion and brief mentions. Cunard's additional links don't help: Sunday Times of Perth (local); PerthNow (local); Broadsheet (seems to be national but also to specialize in doing positive reviews of everthing, i.e. promotion); Concrete Playground (ditto). The vast, vast majority of venues like this should never have WP articles, per WP:NOT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Northbridge, Western Australia and add a brief 1-2 sentence description in the "Culture" section of the proposed redirect target. Not independently notable but a reasonable search term.  Frank   Anchor  13:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Virtually ALL local publications about local businesses are SPONSORED ("infomercials") – no current business model for newspapers allows for free advertisements. Therefore, I don't believe that any local "review" was independent from the subject. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You could say that about any news media source since they all advertise, and so they will always profit from anything they are reporting on no matter if there is sponsorship related to what they report about or not. Plus, we have no way to determine which things they report on are sponsor related, and which ones are not unless they tell us directly this report was brought to you by so and so, and most reputable reporting agencies (even local ones) will do this in some form. Huggums537 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, the problem is much wider than this particular article. However, truly notable businesses will also have significant in-depth coverage, positive or negative (e.g., Nestlé, Ford) or be notable in other ways (e.g. company size, innovation, stock listings, etc.). A restaurant that is mentioned only in the local media and only because it exists and is open to business – is positively non-notable.  —  kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  10:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. I wasn't saying there was a problem wider than the article. I was saying that your "problem" with local publications doing advertising and sponsorships is only an imagined one because it isn't unique to local publications since all publications and news media outlets do this. If what you were saying was true, then we couldn't use any publication or news media service as independent no matter if it were local or not. If your real argument was the fact that this article wasn't notable enough to have worldwide coverage like Nestle or Ford, then the argument isn't valid since there is no requirement for any article to have worlwide or even national coverage like OTHERSTUFF does. The tired old argument that if something really is notable, then it will be known all over the world is really stupid. There is all kinds of stuff only small groups of experts know or care about that is notable, and the only place you can find "coverage" for it is in a handful of journals... Huggums537 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You could say it virtually about any local business. I'd venture to say that every restaurant larger than three tables has made sure to be known locally, be it through local press or radio or telephone directories. I never said that I require worldwide notability: I only expect notability independent from the subject. Nestlé is notable for various reasons, including the worldwide Nestlé boycott, while Ford Motor Company has its place in history also due to the pioneering implementation of the assembly line concept.
 * Yes, most local publications are unreliable in establishing notability – our key policy states that Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large. We also have a plethora of other policies and guidelines around the reputation of sources and the potentially WP:SPONSORED content.
 * Now let me know please what's so notable about that restaurant that can be found in independent, unsponsored sources. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  10:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that sources be unsponsored. Have you not read WP:SPONSORED? It clearly says what I was explaining to you before, Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article.. Huggums537 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. It's not about advertisements, which indeed are usually marked as such. It's about that particular service that media provide for money: generating buzz. Any media article whose obvious role is to generate buzz about a commercial enterprise is, with absolute certainty, sponsored.
 * If you believe that media companies ("reliable", "unreliable", doesn't matter) are gladly paying their staff to write about random restaurants for nothing in return, you fail to understand how media business works. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources can be reliable and in-depth and still fail AUD, which these do. JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources can be reliable and in-depth and I believe they really meet WP:GNG as demonstrated by Cunard. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cunard's sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Inclined to agree with SMcCandlish, the point of AUD is to avoid independent but indiscriminate sources. May review in more detail later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This meets GNG per 's analysis. So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP. I also think an interesting analogy is to NSONG, which provides that notable sources include[ ] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. Until a music venue has been around for a while (e.g., Webster Hall), it's likely that most of the sources on it will be reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So long as the article meets GNG, it doesn't matter if it fails NCORP. @Voorts, this is incorrect. NCORP prescribes which sources and coverage count towards GNG; an NCORP subject by definition cannot meet GNG if it doesn't meet NCORP. From WP:N: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the sources presented above pass the GNG criteria anyway. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.