Talk:Top Chef: Just Desserts

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Outcomes of Episode Three

There seems to be an edit-war in the making, instigated by two IP editors, who persist in using the IN (+) designation for two chefs singled out during a team challenge, and refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion toward consensus. Traditionally a team win results in everyone being designated with HIGH aside from the chef chosen as overall winner. Yet we did have two chefs, Malika and Erika, along with Eric, whose were singled out during the announcement of the winning team. Typically, this is a scenario when we use IN (+) and IN (-), but generally only when both high and low chefs are singled out, which didn't happen here. Do we have a case for use of the IN (+), or should we continue to revert until the IP editors engage in discussion toward consensus? Drmargi (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Three Blurb/Section

Hi. I was the one who edited the Episode Three Section/blurb (but not the show summary chart). My IP address is 71.104.233.81. I just wanted to add more information, seeing as how in the other Top Chef articles, the team challenges are always described in greater detail, with their menus being listed. I hope that what I did is fine. (BluntDiplomat (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Red links

I have repeatedly added red links for Johnny Iuzzini and notable guest judges who do not now have Wikipedia articles but should and eventually will. This is totally in accordance with Wikipedia policy but the links have been repeatedly removed without discussion. Please do not continue to do this without discussing it here. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are fine on the assumption that someone plans to create an article on the linked topic, and that the topic linked is sufficiently notable to merit an article. What are your plans vis a vis Johnny I? Ditto Sylvia Weinstock? And sorry, but Danielle K is far from sufficiently notable to my mind. Drmargi (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Your mind" and "my plans" are not all that counts. All three are notable enough just by the fact of their role on this show. There is far more harm done by the lack of red links than by their presence. --Crunch (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for red links is whether they are notable enough for articles. Johnny I? Maybe if he becomes a celebrity chef. Sylvia W? Doubtful, if she doesn't have one by now. Danielle K? Hardly. (BTW, we DID see Seth on a gurney being loaded in a paramedic wagon. Now I don't know what paramedics do with a patient under those circumstances where you come from, but the LA County FD paramedics and LA CIty FD paramedics take the patient to the hospital. So we DID see him going to the hospital.) Drmargi (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny clearly meets the criteria for WP:BIO. Simply by hosting Top Chef Just Desserts he has generated enough published, reliable, secondary sources to meet notability standards. If that is not enough, his 2006 James Beard award as Pastry Chef of the Year should seal the deal. Becoming a "celebrity chef", whatever that means, is not of the criteria for WP:BIO. The notion that if Sylvia Wienstock were notable enough for an article she would have one by now, is just patently absurd. If this were the case, there would never be another new bio article created on Wikipedia. In any case, Weinstock also clearly meets the criteria for WP:BIO. As for Seth on a gurney, we saw the paramdeics. We saw a gurney. Seth was not shown on the gurney. He was shown lying on the floor. There was no hospital shown or no mention that he was taken to a hospital. Obviously you realize that not every EMT call results in transporting the patient to the hospital. Sometimes they are treated on the spot and the EMTs leave. The bottom line is if it's not shown on the show or mentioned on the show, we can't just assume it happened. --Crunch (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]