This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
I can see no evidence that this list has any notability. Most of the venues listed have no articles and would struggle to demonstrate notability.
Many (most?) of the entries are hopelessly out of date and keeping them updated would be a herculean task. The list only acknowledges a tiny fraction of the Restaurants in Wales. In Menai Bridge alone there are over 20 venues where one can eat - should they all be listed if we can simply find a reference for each? Does this list actually serve any purpose ? My belief is that it does not, but I would welcome the views of others. VelellaVelella Talk 19:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although kept at AfD, this list remains indiscriminate because of the red linked restaurants. We are not explaining the inclusion criteria, and even a Michelin star does not demonstrate a restaurant is notable (per WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH). So what are the inclusion criteria here? I would suggest that the most common notability requirement is that the entry has a page (blue link). The problem with selecting some restaurants with red links is that this list then falls foul of WP:SPIP - we are selecting, on an unpublished set of criteria, certain restaurants for inclusion. Should the red links therefore all go? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy - I agree, as you might well assume! I believe the word notable in the opening sentence should be blue linked, as here, and that the judgment for inclusion should be that there is an extant English Wikipedia article to link to. Happy to implement as my original comment has been here since 5 March 2023 with only your support and no dissenting voices. VelellaVelella Talk 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be harsh to delete all the redlinked entries - some (though admittedly not all) have multiple citations which suggest strongly they meet WP:GNG. It's certainly not an "indiscriminate" list. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think number of citations is necessarily a good metric.
The Old Rectory Country House, Glan Conwy - this has two citations but all we can say about it is that it's a listed building and used to have a Michelin star.
Carlton Riverside, Llanwrtyd Wells - Overlooks a river, used to have a Michelin star. 3 citations.
etc.
If these became pages they would not fare well at AfD. However, the reason for discussing here rather than simply deleting them as a bold action was that I would not want to delete good information for the sake of it. Yet we don't really have any clear inclusion criteria here beyond the fact that someone dug out a couple of citations, did we? Doesn't that make the collection within the gift of editor selection? I am not sure any of the citations would meet WP:SIRS in establishing notability. If not the existence of an article, what are our notability criteria? We could base off a reliable secondary source if there were good reason to do so. But do we? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed well defined, and the relevant notability guidelines for restaurants are found in WP:NCORP, which explain that to be notable for an article it must have attracted the notice of reliable sources, but when evaluating the sources, per WP:SIRS, each source that counts towards notability must be significant, independent, reliable and from a secondary source. Significance is covered in WP:CORPDEPTH which I have already mentioned. But that is for articles. Lists do not have to include only articles, but the collection of a list must itself meet notability guidelines for a list, and any list must have clear inclusion criteria. The contents of a list, like the contents of an article, don't have to be individually notable, but there must be inclusion criteria because the list cannot be indiscriminate. If we restrict the list to the restaurants that are notable per WP:NCORP there is no problem. All notable restaurants go in, and none else. If we don't do that, then we need to have a set of consistently applied and agreed inclusion criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately( or unfortunately depending on your view), Wikipedia has a logically precise answer which you have spelled out. The only grey area is whether some existing entries with sources would make an article which would survive AFD. My own view remain unchanged. No article = no entry. I think that notability is well defined so let's stick to that definition. A lot of entries in the list will go, but looking at the list, I think that is no bad thing. VelellaVelella Talk 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not just create Wikipedia pages for the redlinks? Most of them could realistically have a page. Removing them from this list is not really helpful when most have Michelin stars and reviews in the largest papers of the United Kingdom. Better to create a page to solve that problem of "bluelinks only" rather than to delete clearly notable restaurants. I did this for the AfD, too. Pick a redlinked restaurant, and I promise I can find plenty of significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the red links do not have a Michelin star. But a list of Michelin starred restaurants would, at least, be an inclusion criterion. As for creating pages - even the fact of having a Michelin star is not necessarily sufficient notability under NCORP. There has to be sufficient information in secondary sources to write an article.
But again, it is not about simply deleting the red links - it is about having inclusion criteria that are used to select entries, rather than just having editors add the places they feel like. This is per policy. See WP:LISTV#INCSirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just having an inclusion criterion or some criteria are what I was asking for. Four reviews in significant sources seems reasonable but it still does not necessarily dispel the concern over WP:SPIP - that editors are selecting specific restaurants at their discretion for inclusion. It helps, because now the editors must find 4 reviews before doing so, but editors will only be searching for reviews for the places they are pre-selecting. Such a criterion is a good start, but in order to establish the neutrality of the list, I would have thought that something that treats the list as a set would be better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No redlinked restaurants here have been added here without evidence of notability - someone has clearly done due diligence before adding new entries, with reliable sources included. Everything on Wikipedia is included/pre-selected at the discretion of editors (there are many topics that are notable that do not yet have a Wikipedia article). WP:GNG is guidance for whether a subject warrants its own article, it doesn't automatically follow that an article already exists. After I was first drawn to this list, I searched for other notable restaurants and struggled to find many obvious absences. It seems to concur with the introduction, that Wales is not renowned for great restaurants. Which of the entries do you no consider sufficiently notable for an entry? Personally I would not be concerned with any of the entries, as long as they had multiple (at least two) general, in-depth, non-local, news sources as citations. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may be using their discretion, but they need to do so in a manner that is neutral, which is why we have notability guidelines, and why those guidelines insist that articles (and this includes list articles) follow reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. My point, and sorry to labour it, but it is important, is that a list of notable restaurants in Wales must be neutral and free from bias, and it must be seen to be neutral and free from bias, or else any editor may add their favourite restaurant, whilst omitting others. An editor striving for neutrality may still show an unintended bias because they would add the restaurants they know about, rather than curating a collection from reliable sources. This because they may be unaware of what the sources say.
So you say you searched for notable restaurants and found none missing. Yet Michelin starred SY23 is not on the list.[1] Just looking at Ceredigion, two others found in the Michelin guide are not there. A quick check shows that one of these, Y Talbot, Tregaron, gets plenty of coverage. E.g.[2]. But Y Talbot is not Michelin starred, it is just in the guide. I strongly expect that it would meet the 4 sources suggestion above, but then, what about restaurants that are not in the guide but are listed in other lists, such as: [3]? Has our due diligence extended to testing all of those for the sourcing requirement?
At AfD the point was made that this was only a list of notable restaurants. I edit a couple of pages on lists of notable programming languages, and the criterion is simple: if a page is blue linked and a programming language it is in, if not, it is out. That works, but we don't have to do that. We can have inclusion criteria that include red linked restaurants, but then we need to be scrupulously fair in how we choose what goes in, or else it is promotional. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it contained all notable Welsh restaurants, but that all the current entries are notable. And editors are always free to add their favourite restaurants, as they are also free to edit their favourite articles. That is not a violation of neutrality. By your definition, Wikipedia lacking information on niche but notable topics because of a lack of interest would violate neutrality. That is not how that works. Any restaurant is free to be added so long as it is demonstrably notable. How do we decide notability? Sources, as always. The current entries have plenty of coverage and thus are notable. Notability and having an article are not the same. If an entry lacks sources and is promotional, remove it. Otherwise, it's a completely fine encyclopedic overview of restaurants that have plenty of information about them. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that last reply was to Sionk. Are all the current red entries notable for an article? I am not convinced, but that is not the point. You are basically saying here that because anyone is free to add their favourite restaurant, that this is not a problem. But it is a problem because when the content of an encyclopaedia is merely down to editor favourites, we introduce systematic bias. Wikipedia has systematic bias already in the spread of its articles, but that is not a green light to allowing bias within the individual articles. If this article is to be neutral, it must not be a collection of editor favourites, it must be based on objective inclusion criteria, which is what WP:LISTV#INC tells us.
Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.
And then, what is the point of this list? What encyclopaedic information are we presenting, bearing in mind WP:NOTGUIDE? Does that point us to the appropriate inclusion criteria? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've really got no idea where you're going with this. So if someone writes and article about their favorite restaurant, then that would be an unacceptable entry? We can only add entries to list articles if we don't care less about them and have no interest? If we like the restaurant, we are only writing it for promotional purposes? Sionk (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia provides a clear definition of notability. This is a list of notable restaurants. Therefore all the entries must meet that standard required of notability. If they meet that standard then any reasonably well sourced article about that restaurant will survive any deletion proposal and be retained. Given all that, is the argument that we don't necessarily need an article even though a restaurant is demonstrably notable? If that is the argument, then that is a non-argument. Let us just do the homework and get the articles written. Those that survive are listed here. Those that don't aren't. This is what notability means. We don't have to overthink inclusion criteria. Let's just do the homework. VelellaVelella Talk 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that currently all of the redlinks have enough sourcing in existence to support an article. That means, under Wikipedia policy, that they are notable. Thus, removing them does not really help. As I've said before, pick one you doubt is notable and I can point out many different sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear again, I am not interested in simply deleting information, or this is not how I would have started. I am interested in a clear set of inclusion criteria that are consistently applied, preferably basing the list here on a set or group from independent reliable secondary sources. So if I point out problems with the listing of, say, The Grove, Narberth, it is not because I want to remove that restaurant but because at the moment its presence on the list is an example of indiscriminate listing. But to be clear, The Grove has 3 citations, but the first is an article about the hotel, not the restaurant. The second is an article primarily about Coast that mentions it in passing as getting rosettes, and the third is a dead link!
Now based on that, this restaurant should not really be there. But could an article be written about it that would survive an AfD conducted under WP:NCORP guidance? Sure there will be reviews, but surely all restaurants have reviews and, especially in local press, reviews are rarely independent. But what the Grove does have going for it is that it is at least listed in the Michelin guide. That would not be enough for NCORP, but it might be enough to satisfy some editors. Yet if we list ALL restaurants that are in the Michelin guide, I think we might fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE. Nevertheless it would count as a reliable secondary source that treats the restaurants as a group. I note I have found several restaurants missing from this list that have Michelin stars or are listed in the guide, as discussed above, and this just looking at one county. I have added nothing because we still have not defined the inclusion criteria, so I am not clear what is in and what is out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add, it was your comment at AfD that said we should: add an invisible comment to formally establish selection criteria.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to reopen the above disagreements, but I have to agree with the comment above that keeping this updated would be a mammoth task. Just to take the Monmouthshire entries, which I know, the Hardwick closed last year after a disastrous embezzlement case by two staff members, and the Foxhunter, while a perfectly pleasant pub, is now just that. It hasn't been a "notable" restaurant, however defined, for at least a decade. Conversely, The Bell at Skenfrith is not mentioned, and yet if the inclusion criteria is x-number of press mentions, it should be, [4]. KJP1 (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer just WP:CSC, based on ones with an article. Simpler and we only need to update it when a restaurant is decided to need an article, and such notability doesn't expire when they close down, we only just need to add that they have. Appears this list is slightly already going in this direction.
