Wikipedia talk:Notability (restaurants)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Great Start

I think this is an excellent start, and has the potential to seriously help keep both vanity and commercial spam down in this category.

In the example of the difference between the notability of an event at a restaurant verses the notability of the restaurant itself, you use McDonald's. It might be better to use a different or made-up name, as of course McDonald's is notable itself as a major chain (or for whatever reasons). Proxy User (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on criteria

I'm not convinced that we need this but here are a few comments anyway.

I think that starting the Mobil and AAA at three stars/diamonds is too low of a standard. The ones that get 3 are good, but notable? I have my reservations.

Given that Gault Millau generally only starts listing at 10 points, I believe that this mark is also too low.

While it is nice to include the NYT as a criteria, I would be hard pressed to come up with any criteria that could be used to qualify other newspapers. Yes, there are a few with excellent records, but how do editors know which ones to use? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What time are your reservations? :-D Seriously, I agree with you and I don't really find any way we can really keep newspapers in this list without introducing POV. The 3 stars/diamonds was included because the restaurant guides WP article equates 3 of those with one Michelin star, and one M-star seems notable enough to me. Perhaps not though. With that, and with the Gault Millau guide, I find myself more than un-knowledgeable. --Kickstart70TC 07:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Being mentioned in the Gault Millau certainly qualifies for notability, in the same way as getting "just one" star in the Guide Michelin does. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Vegaswikian in that I'm not 100% sure we need this, but at the very least I think it should restate the bullet points of the standard notability guideline (such as coverage in multiple sources) because that's still the most important thing.

Also, are there precedents for restaurant articles being kept at AFD for having 3 stars from Mobil, 1 star from Michelin, etc.? Or are we starting with a somewhat arbitrary set of standards and working on refining them? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely had to pick some arbitrary rules to get this going. I have no problem with refining them at all. For what it's worth, I think that's going to be a requirement, as according to www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Michelin-Guide this page, even if we limited to only the restaurants with at least one Michelin star, that still would mean potentially allowing 20,000+ restaurants. Given that Michelin calls one-star just "interesting", maybe we need an even stricter standard. --Kickstart70TC 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary guideline

I see no reason for any special processing for restaurants: coverage in multiple third-party sources that examine the topic directly and in detail is the normal standard. I can't think of a reason to include a restaurant that failed to meet that standard, nor can I think of a reason to exclude a restaurant that did.—Kww(talk) 03:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we do need a guideline because of the voluminous and excessive number of restaurants being added without any references or proof of notability at all. And when those restaurants go to Afd, the "Keep" people are using the simple fact that newspapers have reviewed them (positively or not) as proof of notability. My local town paper does restaurant reviews. There are 27000 people in the area. Does that mean that those restaurants reviewed by my local paper are notable? --Kickstart70TC 04:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Positively or not" isn't a criteria. If a restaurant received world-wide coverage for making the worst ravioli known to man, it would still be notable for creating the world's worst ravioli. If that's the problem, then the guideline should be about sources, something like:

Local newspaper reviews do not serve to convey notability to restaurants. Since these reviews strive to provide complete and exhaustive coverage of the area they serve, their reviews will cover the notable and non-notable alike. Coverage must reach the regional level before being treated as a source of notability.

That will solve your problem, and prevent you from getting into wars over whether it should take 3 stars or 4 to get in.—Kww(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this page is unnecessary. It clearly violates our policies WP:BURO and WP:NOTLAW as it seems to be based upon the prescriptive ideas of a handful of editors rather than addressing the reality of our content as seen at Mzoli's. I patrol AFD regularly and see little mention of restaurants there and so there isn't a significant problem to be fixed. I move that we mark this putative guideline as failed. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. As far as I can see existing guidelines and practice have been fine for determining the notability of restaurants. On the issue of reviews, we should treat them for restaurants in just the same way as we treat them for bands, books, plays, films etc., i.e. an extensive review in a major national publication counts for more than a couple of sentences in a local newspaper. We don't need a separate guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, if you look at WP:CORP and compare those requirements (substantial and non-trivial references specifically) to the restaurants currently listed, you'll see that a good many have pages but do not have required notability. However, when those pages' notability is question, all that goes out the window and trivial references are given far too much credence (non-notable reviews, inclusion in restaurant guides, etc.). So...either we properly apply WP:CORP to restaurants or we need another guideline. This situation where neither apply is a net negative for Wikipedia. --Kickstart70TC 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to what I said on your talk page. All guidelines (including CORP, BIO, and WP:N itself) can only describe what has happened at AFDs in the past, so if past AFDs have taken a liberal view of the guideline then a stricter "rule" can't possibly fix the situation. That's because there are no rules when it comes to notability: verifiability through any reliable source is all that is technically required by policy. You won't be able legislate change through guidelines. That goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really disagree, however if that is the case (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then the notability guidelines need a radical change. Far be it for me to individually decide that they don't really apply, but if others here feel that the guidelines aren't serving the intended purpose, then it's really up to them to start making that change. Be Bold and jump into that...a guideline that's routinely ignored isn't any use to anyone at all. Taking this the other way, if the notability guidelines describe the community and not the other way around, then a certain segment of editors are editing away from the general consensus and that's also a net negative for Wikipedia. --Kickstart70TC 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most people feel the guidelines are serving their purpose. Since Wikipedia isn't paper, there's no urgent need to artificially limit our scope. Can you show some examples of AFDs in which notability guidelines are ignored? I'm not seeing them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

More rule creep. I see no point in this article whatsoever, except as a tool for editors to use in deleting other editors work.

Since everyone is doing it, I am going to come up with a new notability Fork, Wikipedia:Notability (vegetables) travb (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't get it

Mstars are an evaluator of multiple things, but not notability. NYTimes stars are also an evaluator of multiple things, but yet again, not notability.

Katz's Delicatessen is a very notable restaurant - one stars. Not having an article on Katz would be a mistake.

BLT Fish is not a notable restaurant - three stars.

The "quality" of a restaurnt is not it's notability. Carte Rouge (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion then, Michelin stars confer no notability? Not that I disagree, but the current state of restaurant pages here on WP and no conferred notability would mean that about 99% of them would disappear. But without a guideline, and with Afds often treated as votes, people would give different criteria for keeping them. --Kickstart70TC 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. "Notability" has nothing to do with "quality". Notability is all about the amount of coverage received in third-party sources and the quality and importance of those sources. Whether the coverage is about the quality of the food or the amount of customers poisoned with salmonella isn't an issue.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But you are saying third-party sources confer notability and Michelin is a third-party source (a reputable one could be debated). Regardless of how many stars they give to the restaurant, that does appear to be a valid criteria then. Unless I am missing something? --Kickstart70TC 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not specifically familiar with the Michelin guide, so I'll lay out the general principles and let you decide. Any source which attempts to be selective tends to convey notability, those which are exhaustive do not. Think of a phone book: since a phone book's function is to list every name in a city, it is of no help in determining which of those names belong to notable people and which do not. Similarly, if the Michelin guide tries to list every restaurant in an area, then it would not convey notability, no matter what rating was given. If it's a paid guide, where restaurants pay to be listed, then it isn't independent, so it wouldn't convey notability. However, if it is an independent guide that uses editorial judgment about which restaurants should be included, then a listing in it would indicate notability, no matter what rating was given.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In that case, Michelin does confer that notability, as it's selective - not exhaustive. They don't award even one star to some average restaurant. However, then we must ask whether we can be more selective than a starred/diamonded guide...if their assignment of one star is too broad (as stated previously, there may be as many as 20,000 starred restaurants), perhaps we have to make a POV or somewhat biased decision on whether two or three stars is our criteria. I'm not advocating that...I am just bringing forward the need for defining "selective" and "exhaustive". In the many tens or hundreds of thousands of restaurants on the planet, Michelin choosing 20,000 could be thought of as both selective and exhaustive. It all depends on how you approach the question. --Kickstart70TC 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not accurate that "Michelin [is] ... selective - not exhaustive." The guides themselves attempt to list every quality restaurant in the area (The guide for NYC lists 565 restaurants). Being listed in the guide is not a mark of notability. Carte Rouge (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can try to be more restrictive, but most such efforts fail. My advice is to go through the AFDs and see if you can find any common arguments for deletion that actually resulted in deletion. If you can find a few, those will make a good starting point for something you can get people to agree to. If you just try to make up a guideline and force it on people, you are certain to fail.—Kww(talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat what brought me to this in the first place. I was going through the As and Bs of the restaurant stubs categories and trying to determine notability. Ones that I didn't believe had enough notability were put for Afd. Of those, 2 resulted in a delete. Others resulted in a keep, almost always because they were assigned notability because newspapers had reviewed them, with almost no other criteria. I don't really believe that a newspaper review confers notability, as newspapers generally review restaurants without any other notability criteria than rumoured quality. --Kickstart70TC 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I'm just trying to point you in the direction of actually getting somewhere. If people are keeping restaurants because of reviews, there isn't anything you can do to stop it. You can write a guideline that says not to do it, but if people don't want to follow it, you won't be able to get consensus for your guideline. However, if you look through the pile and find out why people actually are deleting them, you can incorporate those reasons into a guideline, and grow from there.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on guidelines

I have some comments on the guideline:

• 1) The article doesn't say much about what IS notable.
• 2)The first entry is about how events at a restaurant might make one notable. But that's not the core of a restaurant inclusion policy. Not as I see it anyway. I would think it should be based on the restaurant's history, influence on cooking, reknown for exceptional products, and the extent to which it has innovated food preparation and service. This would be demonstrated per the usual requirements for substantial coverage in reliable media.
• 3) having the size of the chain be the decisive factor seems misguided. There are big chains that aren't especially notable and small chains that have huge influence. Notability is determined by references to sources discussin the subject in depth. But for food related articles the role in cookbooks and food culture should also be considered. Morton's isn't a giant chain, but it's been very influential and is very prestigious.
• 4) Restaurants are social and cultural institutions, so their role in a community should also be considered. A 100 year old cafe is likely to be notable if it's a cultural centerpoint for a community and serves distinctive cuisine, and is a tourist attraction and a focal point for foodies. Again all these indicators of notability should be supported by good references. But how big or how many of a restaurant there are seems kind of lame, not to mention that it's inconsistent with notability guidelines except in so far as size is ONE indicator of notability (if it's supported with good citations).

Those are my comments. Thanks for your kind consideration.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't disagree with any of your comments especially, although I have a hard time deciding how much history is required before notability is obtained. I would imagine there are 50 (100?) year old cafes across the world that are really no more notable than one that opened last week. It's only a combination of history plus other factors you've mentioned that should confer notability. That being said, is history (except perhaps in extreme cases where a long history IS their primary notable factor) of any particular restaurant therefore notable at all? --Kickstart70TC 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think history is just one of the criteria to consider. In some cases notable history may be enough to satisfy notability and in other cases it may be a contributing factor against inclusion. Any restaurant newer than 5 or years is highly suspect in my opinion and would have to be especially notable in other areas. A 100 year old restaurant is likely to have some almost inherent notability based on its history. Having done more AfDs since my original comment, my position generally would be for a simpler notability criteria for all articles.

Notability is established with substantial coverage of a subject in established and reliable media. That could be the whole policy and we could get rid of all the other policy pages. :) Wacky distinctions like EVERY olympian is automatically notable or the arguments on which amateur sports should be considered "highest levels" add needless complication. I don't think the restaurant guideline is any different. Is the coverage substantial or likely to be so? That's it. Thanks for replying to my earlier thoughts.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Failed

I have added {{failed}} to the proposal for the following reasons:

• The proposal as presented has clearly not found consensus.
• There have been no productive edits to the page in over a month.
• There have been no productive talking points in over a month.
• The proposal has been misleadingly presented as a guideline in AFDs such as this and this.

At this point, as shown by discussions here and by results of the above AFDs, this proposal does not have the support of the community and should not be presented as a content guideline. It is therefore, for the time being at least, a failed proposal. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)