Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Calandre

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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Calandre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp the rationale "one of the top 50 restaurants in the world is probably notable". Well, it's an interesting issue: is inclusion in the The World's 50 Best Restaurants sufficient to make a restaurant notable? I think not, a lot of those would be perennial stubs with little to say except that it exists somewhere and won this award. I think inclusion in that list should not be enough for a stand-alone article, which should require further sources - at best those restaurants can be mentioned in the list of restaurants which made it to the The World's 50 Best Restaurants ranking. I'll also note most of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as detailed above. Not many restaurants make it onto the list; those that do are clearly notable. It also has three Michelin stars! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly notable per what policy? Don't say it is common sense. Common sense applies to things that have household recognition. 99.9% of people (or our editors) have never heard of that obscure award. Not all awards grant auto-notability. Michelin is a bit more famous, but again, I don't see this in the rules anywhere. We have a List of Michelin 3-star restaurants which can mention such tiny-stub restaurants without a need for them to have a stand-alone two sentence entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michelin is "a bit more famous"!? You really couldn't make this stuff up! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another three-star restaurant at AfD! Of course there are sources to confirm notability. In English, here are a couple that can be used to start expanding the article: WWD, Food & Wine. Lots more in English and Italian. AfD evaluates articles based on their potential, not their current state, and the suggestion that highly distinguished restaurants like this one should be relegated to a listing on a chart is counterproductive; our content about these establishments can and should be expanded and improved, not banished and reduced to uselessness.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the mean time. Per Arxiloxos addressed, this article has the ability to grow in the near future. However, as of now, the article is an utter stub and fit for deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, though I don't oppose a Keep. The coverage is almost all in Italian. What I find is either on the Michelin stars, or on Massimiliano Alajmo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable restaurant judging from 100s of sources, and quoting from a few:

"one of Italy's most cutting-edge restaurants"

"is consistently judged by major restaurant critics as one of the two or three best restaurants in the country"

"This is truly a restaurant at the pinnacle of culinary achievement."

"Le Calandre is without doubt one of the top restaurants of the world."

I have added 25 sources and expanded.

References

Is anyone suggesting that WP:BEFORE was followed here?

This AfD discussion starts with quoting a boilerplate sayingthe coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient ..., but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and to evaluate that requires WP:BEFORE. To add insult to injury, it was obviously the wrong boilerplate being copy-pasted from User:Piotrus/Templates: this is not a biography, and while another kind editor has corrected the AfD category to |O in this diff, the nomination text retains the erroneousand the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement.

It is being stated above in regards to previous lists of The World's 50 Best Restaurants thatmost of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). This is a misunderstanding, as (a) whether a source is live or archived is irrelevant to its value (WP:404 etc.), and more importantly (b) we use independent sources, not primary, to judge notability (WP:IS etc.). If, however, one would continue to argue that the live presence of these lists on the contrary suggested "a lasting, significant recognition", then some foot damage is happening here. Go to www.theworlds50best.com and choose LIST from the menu, then choose PREVIOUS LISTS, then choose YYYY LIST. Voila! Took 10 seconds. All lists are live online. I do prefer secondary sources, and a quick search has so far brought about reliable sources confirming Le Calandre's placement on the list for each of the last 9 years. It took me about 15 minutes. So it is notimpossible to verify those claims at all.

AfD nominations like these are a waste of community time, gut feeling "notable? dubious, prodding" prods like this are harmful given the lack of WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD is policy and should be followed. Sam Sailor 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the superb rating it received which is veriafiable and the sources provided above do indeed establish notability. Also existence of such vast number of sources in English do surely suggest more will be found in, their language, Italian. Also mass nomination with copy/paste rationale is surely not great idea –Ammarpad (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.