Talk:Dalessandro's Steaks

POV
Wow. This mess was clearly written by a fan. First, we has a blog and the New York Times cited for "The eatery has been highly rated and considered landmark in Roxborough Northwest Philadelphia." The blog (not a reliable source, of course) did more or less say that. That's what blogs do. The Times, however, merely mentioned the place in passing. Taking out the blog, the puff was unsourced. The bare mention in the Times was useless. The blog also supported calling it a local favorite. All of that is now gone. Next, we had "In 2015, Dalessandro's ranked as among the top cheesesteaks in Philadelphia." Wow! It's one of the best in the city! Heck, if we search enough, we'll find there are at least 30 places that were one of the ten best in the city in 2015, because that is an opinion. That particular puff was actually the tourist board promoting members as having the "most authentic" cheesesteaks. Next up was a user-generated entry in a database sourced to tell us: "The Food Network described the steak as 'finely chopped' and paired well with 'craft beer'." Finely chopped! You can drink beer with it! This is clearly the type of hardcore, encyclopedic knowledge we need more of. More importantly, do they have ketchup in proper squeeze bottles or do they use those damnable pumps? That's gone. Now we are faced with various pull-out quotes from various reviews. Yes, the 30 top 10 places can all be built up with a careful selection of quotes about what various reviewers liked. We can also pull out bits about long lines, pools of grease, dirty tables, etc. I can guarantee we can find equally pseudo-reliable sources stating that any given place is overrated and sells future heart attacks. We also see that one particular celebrity has eaten there. Do tell! Where is our List of people who have eaten at McDonalds article? Moreover, it's not just him! It's celebrities such as him who have "dined" there. He's merely an example of the extensive list of people jetting in from around the world to have a cheesesteak at a diner in Roxborough. Incidentally, is this article about the diner or one item on their menu? Long story short: This is a puff piece. I'm going to cut a lot of the crap and see what's left. First, I'd like some other thoughts. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, one issue at a time... - Sum mer PhD v2.0


 * Putting this here in case an ANI needs to be done if Valoem continues to edit-war and exhibit clear WP:OWNership of this page, he has deleted this from his page without comment:
 * Information orange.svg Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Dalessandro's Steaks. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. This edit and its summary, "explained removal of information please discussion with me before editing" (emphasis added) are inappropriate given the suggestion that they violate WP:OWN. Also, in your haste to edit-war with SummerPhD, you undid my revisions and thus reinstated flagrant grammatical and stylistic errors.  JesseRafe (talk) 1:21 pm, Today (UTC−5)
 * This editor then, as I'm copying-and pasting the deleted warning which makes a conclusive case for their "ownership" behavior, wrote on my Talk Page with the very profound section heading, "No". Just documenting as it seems relevant to the larger discussion here. JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the edit war? It was one revert therefore your comments on my talk page are inappropriate. I even said you can go ahead and revert, where is the ownership in that? Apologize or ANI, this would obviously boomerang but go ahead be my guest. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please limit discussion on this article talk page to the article. If you have issues with an editor, please discuss that on the editor's talk page. If you are unable to resolve the issue there, ANI is one of several options. The issue below awaits input. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the current version obviously. JesseRafe was apparently pouting that his version was reverted, which is an accident, speaking of "ownership". Valoem   talk   contrib  18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Using a blog as a source
This is a blog. As a self-published source it is not a reliable source. Comments before I remove it? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the blog source in favor of stronger sources. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Misused source
This source is a blog discussing this list. We should not be citing a blog. In that list, Visit Philadelphia does list it as #8. The same site has numerous other lists giving differing rankings. Why this particular list and not the others? My general rule of thumb on "awards" and "rankings" is whether or not independent reliable sources discuss the award/ranking. We certainly have sources discussing who won which Oscar/Tony/etc. We generally do not find reliable sources discussing "Jim's Killer Film Blogs List of Best Decapitations Evrrrrrrr!" While this is clearly somewhere in the middle, I'd like to suggest that this particular list -- and others like it on the same site -- is not a meaningful award, but an article from a convention and visitor's bureau meant to promote businesses in the city. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see too much of an issue with that source. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can explain what your criteria would be. As I mentioned before, there are certainly thousands of such lists. Some of them say this place's cheesesteaks are the world's best, others say quite the opposite.
 * Additionally, we are citing Visit Philly in one spot and a blog reporting on a vaguely different list from the same site elsewhere. Why cite the blog rather than the source? Why separate the two rankings from the same site? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the same website gave reviews from different years also different critics. I may be wrong here, but Patch does have some form of editorial oversight, so the blog is not a joesmoe blog, but a reviewed one, again I may be wrong here. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same website gave "reviews" from different "critics". Different years? No way to tell. Why the scare quotes around "reviews" and "critics"? Because that site is the tourist board for the city. Looking at a handful of the dozens of "best of"/"most authentic"/"iconic"/"most Philadelphian"/etc. cheesesteak lists and the close to 7,000 pages they have about cheesesteak places, each and every one is absolutely awesome! Visit Phildelphia, formerly the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, does not exist to give impartial critical reviews of anything. It's mission is to make "Philadelphia and The Countryside a premier destination through marketing and image building that increases business and promotes the region’s vitality." Most of their budget comes from the city's hotel tax. They want you to come to Philadelphia and buy Liberty Bell paperweights, Ben Franklin bobbleheads, Rocky t-shirts and cheesesteaks.
 * We should not be citing them at all, much less picking two of their 7,000 articles at random and spreading those two apart as if they are two different and independent sources.
 * (Incidentally: Yes, Patch.com has "some" editorial oversight at the national level, their local content seems to be a lot... um... let's say "softer".) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No replies. I removed them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * reverted without much explanation. Discussion before I restore my change? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last call on this. Visit Phildelphia, formerly the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, does not exist to give impartial critical reviews of anything. It's mission is to make "Philadelphia and The Countryside a premier destination through marketing and image building that increases business and promotes the region’s vitality." Most of their budget comes from the city's hotel tax. They want you to come to Philadelphia and buy Liberty Bell paperweights, Ben Franklin bobbleheads, Rocky t-shirts and cheesesteaks. This is not an independent source by any stretch of the imagination. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No response. I've made the change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was reverted again. The only explanations offered were an assumption of bad faith, a statement that the sources are "fine and notable" and that I should, for some reason, that this to AfD.
 * I have addressed the [[WP:AGF|assumption of bad faith.
 * That the source is notable is not at issue; the source exists solely to promote businesses in Philadelphia (as repeatedly explained, above).
 * AfD is to discuss "discuss whether an article should be deleted". I have not suggested the article be deleted. AfD has relevance here.
 * If there is no discussion to the contrary, I will restore my edit in three days. If my edit is again reverted without discussion, I will warn for edit warring. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No discussion. I'm removing it. Next up is the Food Network "rating", below. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, with no discussion regarding the fact that this is a promotional website, this has been reverted. I's ask for a third opinion as to whether or not this is a promotional site but, so far, there is only one opinion here. Point blank:, is Visit Philadelphia, whose mission is to make "Philadelphia and The Countryside a premier destination through marketing and image building that increases business and promotes the region’s vitality" a promotional site? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than answering here, responded below, under "Removal of sources / Warning". I am taking "not the best source" as basically agreeing this is not a good source here. I am removing it. I am not acquiescing to his demand that I add a source to replace this one. This source does not belong here, I am removing it. If he has other sources, he is free to add them. If I add additional sources at another time, that is unrelated to the removal of this bad source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

, of course, reverted with no explanation. Why do you think we should keep this blatantly promotional source? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been over a month of this back and forth. You've now actually looked at our page on Visit Philadelphia, but still refuse to comment. That's enough. If you revert without explanation at this point, it is edit warring. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Food Network "rating"
"The Food Network described the steak as 'finely chopped' and paired well with 'craft beer'." This is not a rating. This is from a directory listing thousands of restaurants and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. At the moment, the source cited says it has ZERO reviews. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No replies, I'm removing it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * reverted without much explanation. Discussion before I restore my change? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * reverted without much explanation. Discussion before I restore my change? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Last call for comments on this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No responses. I'm making the change. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was again reverted with very little explanation. For simplicity's sake, I am attempting to resolve the use of the promotional source before addressing this one. (See discussion immediately above this topic.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was again reverted with very little explanation. For simplicity's sake, I am attempting to resolve the use of the promotional source before addressing this one. (See discussion immediately above this topic.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was again reverted with very little explanation. For simplicity's sake, I am attempting to resolve the use of the promotional source before addressing this one. (See discussion immediately above this topic.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, this "rating" is merely a directory listing. Comments before I remove it? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As there has been no discussion to the contrary, I am removing this directory listing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, do not removal without another editors approval. I've clear discussed and disagreed, further edit will go to ANI. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain: why do you feel a directory listing should be included as a "rating"? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see where you have said anything substantial about this source. ("The sources are fine." is not saying anything substantial about the sources, it is a simple judgement.) Please explain why we should quote a directory list as if it were a rating. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Meal
This is cited as a source for "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough, Philadelphia that is considered a landmark." The source is a blog. It is not a reliable source for much of anything. It does not say when the place was founded or that it is "considered a landmark". Comments? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

CBS 3
This is cited for the same info. It is not a blog. It does not say when the place was founded or that it is "considered a landmark". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New York Times
This is cited for the same info. It is not a blog. It does not say when the place was founded or that it is "considered a landmark". In fact, it barely mentions the place. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, not a landmark...
has removed the unsourced "landmark" claim. However, the three sources are still cited for "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough." First, I'd like to acknowledge that I think there is a drive here to prove this place is notable by loading up the article with as many sources as possible. Bombardment is seldom helpful. In the present case, we have the New York Times cited. Yes, it's the freaking Times. I get it. But what does it actually say about the topic? "One of my earliest childhood memories is of sitting next to my dad at Dalessandro’s, a tiny, always-packed steak shop in northwest Philadelphia, grease from a cheese steak dripping down my chin. Not much had changed at that particular joint — from yellowed newspaper clippings on the wall to the harried servers — since my dad was a teenager eating there in the early ’60s." From the sentence it is cited as a source for, I see that Dalessandro's is a cheese steak (sic) shop. ALL of the other sources in the article state that the place exists. This source provides nothing to the article. Next, we have the local CBS affiliate giving a directory style listing. Yes, it confirms the place exists and gives the uncontroversial fact that it is on Wendover St in Roxborough. Should anyone doubt its location, we can certainly use this source -- or virtually any one of the others as a source. Cites in the lede section, however, are generally discouraged by our Manual of Style. The lede section should summarize the rest of the article. This source is out of place and does not confirm the 1960 date (or much else). Finally, we have the Daily Meal. As with the CBS affiliate, it does not belong in the lede, does not support 1960, etc. Long story short: WP:Bombardment, no sources in the lede, NYT bare mention is worthless. Comments? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC) I made the change, it was reverted. I tried discussion. There was no discussion. I made the change again. It was reverted again. I tried discussion again. Still nothing. Eventually there was a claim on another editor's talk page regarding a completely unrelated NYT article and no explanation for defending this one. As a result, of the three, I'm taking up the New York Times article first. Yes, it is the Times. Yes, it mentions Dalessandro's. However, it says nothing about the place other than that the author went there with his dad in the 1960s and it's in NW Philly. I see nothing in the article that this supports. I see nothing in the "source" that can be added to the article. (That there should not be sources in the lede is, at this point, almost a trivial point.) Unless there is discussion to the contrary, I will be removing the NYT non-source source shortly. I'll take up the other two after that. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last call for comments on this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last call for comments on this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to discuss this for over a month. With no input but stonewalling, the WP:CONSENSUS "is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." That would be my arguments compared to nothing.
 * The sources should not be in the lede sentence and do not support any information in the article. I am removing them. They are linked above, in case anyone finds any significant information in them.
 * The reliable sources noticeboard agrees the sources do not support the information they are cited for. Another editor pointed out the "1960" in the logo, which I cited. Another editor pointed toward a few sources which are of varying quality. One gives some history that I'll add now, replacing the unsourced "blue collar families" claim that is there now. - Sum mer PhD v2.0
 * The reliable sources noticeboard agrees the sources do not support the information they are cited for. Another editor pointed out the "1960" in the logo, which I cited. Another editor pointed toward a few sources which are of varying quality. One gives some history that I'll add now, replacing the unsourced "blue collar families" claim that is there now. - Sum mer PhD v2.0

Jimmy Fallon
"Jimmy Fallon has made an appearance and dined at the eatery." Actually, he picked up several sandwiches to go. That's an "appearance" as in, "people saw him there". He did not "dine" at the "eatery". This is under "Ratings". Why? I don't know. Thousands of celebrities "made appearances" and dined at the Brown Derby restaurants. If we spend a few solid days, we could probably find cites for hundreds of blurbs at least as consequential as the tiny note cited for Fallon. If we listed every famous person ever spotted at a McDonalds, we'd have an extensive list of zero encyclopedic value. Nothing against Fallon. I actually think he's a pretty talented guy. That said, where he picked up lunch one day is meaningless trivia. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jimmy: Where you picked up lunch one day is not encyclopedic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * reverted without much explanation. Discussion before I restore my change? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Jimmy Fallon has made an appearance and dined at the eatery." He made an appearance? He showed up. He dined at the eatery? No, he did not. He picked up sandwiches to go. This is trivial. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last call. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No comments in a month of trying. I've removed this trivial bit. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

History
This section is completely unsourced. In the various "sources" that were in the article (mostly bare mentions) I did not see anything to support the established date or that it was started for blue collar workers. The restaurant's own site does not say anything in support of the claims either. Comments before I remove it? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments, ? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"eatery"
Dalessandro's is a restaurant ("a place where people pay to sit and eat meals that are cooked and served on the premises"). Is it an eatery ("a restaurant or other place where people can be served food")? Sure. But why are we saying "Dalessandro's is a restaurant or other place where people can be served food" when we know it's a restaurant? Comements, ? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Justification requested
I really need some justification on this edit here. Remove all sources then tag for single source? I am not following the reason, perhaps AfD when the article has only one source, seems fishy does it not? If you feel these are bad sources and therefore this is not notable you are free to AfD, but with the sources intact, any other method is going can have misinterpretations, what I do not want is for any sources to be removed so that the quality of the article is lower, we do not do that here. Valoem  talk   contrib  22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That "edit" is 10 separate edits over the course of two weeks with an edit summary for each. In addition to the edit summaries, there were 10 edits to the talk page seeking discussion during that time. You were busily editing elsewhere over that time frame. Now, well after the fact, you found the article again, ignored all of the requests for comments and reverted the whole of it as if I have trespassed on "your" article.
 * We do remove sources here. Frequently. We do remove sources for various reasons, then determine that the subject is not notable even though a large number of sources mention the subject. What we do not do here is ignore discussion on the talk page, regular editing, edit summaries -- the whole lot -- and decide there cannot be an explanation other than bad faith.
 * I had begun tagging you every time I make a comment on either of these articles so that you will absolutely see the comments. I'm done with that now. The sections above have requests for your comments. If you wish to discuss the issues, please do. If you do not, the article will continue to evolve without you -- through my edits and the edits of anyone else who happens by. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No I do not own this article, but removing sourcing which most consider reliable and notable is not the way. Based on simple logic, removing sources to a single source and then tagging notability and questionable editing. You can remove sources which are poor and expand the article with proper sources, but your intention is clearly to delete the article based on reasons of not here. I am assuming you are a Steve's fan and dislike the fact other articles exist on Cheesesteak joints. If your goal is to delete this article, go ahead and AfD you have that right, but to reduce the quality of the article with the intention of deletion is bad faith plain and simple. Valoem   talk   contrib  09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please assume good faith. Personal attacks, such as claiming I am not here to improve the encyclopedia (I guess I've been flying under the radar for a decade?).
 * My concerns are outlined above. Pick one and discuss it. Or, ignore all of them and I will simply restore my changes. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sources / Warning
SummerPHD, I have evidence to believe you are removing sources due to a personal dislike or preference for other cheesesteaks. Those sources are all fine and notable, if you think they are not you can AfD, but any further removal of sources is vandalism. It is in my view that you know this restaurant is notable, you are aware that an AfD in this current state will result in a keep, so instead you remove sources and lower the quality for deletion to be possible, if you had issues with the source you would be replacing them or nominating this article for AfD, this is your final warning, further removal of information will result in administrative action. Valoem  talk   contrib  02:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what evidence of bad faith you think you have. You will need to either address the issue or stop making the claim. Unsupported claims that I am acting in bad faith are person attacks. Please see the note to that effect on your talk page.
 * AfD is for deleting articles, not basic editing. The talk page is for discussing edits. You consistently ignore discussions, then revert edits based on those discussions and STILL are not discussing the edits. Here's the situation in a nutshell: You added material. I felt it did not belong here and removed it with an explanatory edit summary. You disliked this and reverted the removal, with the blanket claim that sourced material should not be removed. I brought the issue to the talk page. You did not discuss the issue. I eventually removed the information again (with edit summaries pointing to my attempts to discuss the issue on the talk page). You reverted again with an assumption of bad faith but no real discussion of why you feel my reasoning is incorrect. I tried to discuss the issues again. Again you did not discuss the issue. Again I removed the problematic material. Again, you reverted, assumed bad faith and seem to be insisting that sourced material cannot be removed.
 * Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose I added completely and incontrovertibly inappropriate material to the article, citing a source. How would you go about removing this material?
 * Here's how it is supposed to work: You edit the article. I edit the article. To the extent that we agree with each other, everything is fine. Then, we disagree about something. THEN WE DISCUSS THE ISSUE ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE and try to find a consensus. The discussion topics are on this page. I have explained my positions on the issues. You have not. If you feel I am mistaken or incorrect in some way, EXPLAIN. If you feel I am editing in bad faith, with a conflict of interest or am otherwise problematic, you will need to talk this to an appropriate noticeboard. I can see no reason for you to wait on this.
 * If you do not discuss the issues, I will restore my edits in 3 days (assuming you have edited during that time frame, whether logged in or, as you often do, without logging in).
 * If you accuse me of editing in bad faith again without raising the issue for discussion in an appropriate forum, I will follow thorugh with escalating warnings. I know you are a regular and normally do not receive standard templates on your talk page. You warnings will be brief, numbered and link to WP:NPA and/or WP:NPA as appropriate. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this the sources are fine that is my very simple argument. I do not need to explain any further when a editor/vandal removes Serious Eats as in invalid source. If you are acting in good faith please discussion the changes. No one has agreed with you third party is always an opinion. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please summarize your position on whether or not Visit Philadelphia is a promotional site at "Misused source", above. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are probably better sources than Visit Philadelphia, no doubt, I would preferred that replaced. I've found many, but that leads to my point, if you took an effort to added sources rather than removed and wait for others to do the work Wikipedia would be more corroborative stepping forward to its original goal. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally discussing the source. It is a promotional source. I am removing it. If you would like to add other sources, please do. If you would like to insist that I add a source to replace the one I am removing, I can only remind you that you do not WP:OWN this article or supervise me. But thanks for finally discussing the source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Next up is the directory listing currently described as a "rating". Please discuss the issue under "Food Network 'rating'..." above. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources

 * IF you would like to remove sources which are significant, you may replace them with any other sources (here is a start for you). I do not believe most editors would consider those sources promotional definitely not the one I just linked for you. If you do not replace those sources you have an issue with then I will revert accordingly. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would care to defend the "source" I removed, the discussion is on this page under "Misused source".
 * If you would like to add a source, feel free. If you feel the source may be controversial in some way and would like to discuss it first, I'm watching this page.
 * If you would like to tell me what I must do in exchange for making an edit, I am completely uninterested, other than to hear what policy or guideline gives you the right to demand that I do what you ask on penalty of reverting an edit that you do not have a stated objection to.
 * If you have no further comments re "Misused source", the next edit I plan to make is outlined at "Food Network 'rating'". If you do not comment there, I will make that edit in a couple of days. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Current issues
Discussion on this article seems to have ground to a halt. This does not mean the article is perfect and will remain in its current state. Here are the current issues for discussion: 1) As explained under "Misused source", above, Visit Philadelphia is a promotional site and should not be used here. This falls under "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization", see WP:ORGIND. That one of the two times we cite them is through a blog does not remedy this. 2) As explained under "Food Network 'rating'", this is a directory listing. This falls under "inclusion in lists of similar organizations", see WP:CORPDEPTH. 3) As explained under "1960, 'landmark': OK, not a landmark...", these are not sources. Sources support material in the article (these do not). Additionally, our MOS says we generally do not include sources in the lede. Instead, the lede should broadly summarize the rest of the article, with sources cited where the material is covered in more depth. 4) As explained under "Jimmy Fallon", the fact that he picked up food here one day is trivial. Any restaurant in a city this size that lasts for 10 years or so will see someone notable come through their doors. Heck, the smallish cafe that Mayor Nutter went on a daily basis while in office does not even have an article (and, IMO, is not notable). 5) As explained under "History", we do not have a source for this place being established "as a blue-collar family restaurant." (Until it was mentioned elsewhere, I had missed that 1960 was in the shop's online logo. I have added a cite.) 6) As explained under "'Eatery'", this is an odd word choice. It's a restaurant in Roxborough that is known for its cheesesteaks. While it would be correct to say it is an eatery in the area added to Philadelphia in 1854 that is known for its edibles, it is a matter making a mammal burrow out of a molehill. 7) As discussed under "Justification requested", "Removal of sources / Warning" and "Additional sources", I am attempting to discuss proposed changes (see WP:BRD). I may add or remove material and/or sources in those changes. I will not seek to offset changes in one direction (such as removing a source) with changes in the opposite direction (such as adding a source). There is no policy or guideline to recommend this. I am here trying to improve the project. Claims on this article talk page to the contrary will be handled as personal attacks. (As Valoem has repeatedly threatened, AN/I is an option. Use it or drop the claim.) If there is no discussion of these issues, I am done explaining them and will resume making the changes. If you revert a change, you will need to explain why. If you do not, I can only assume you accidentally hit "revert" or are edit warring, neither of which means I will not restore my change. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If no one counters my opinion, I am a consensus of one - weighing my arguments against a complete lack of contrary arguments can only lead to one conclusion. On the one hand, I said "Our policy says not to". On the other hand: . - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the changes have been made. Due to an annoying tendency for this article to be mass reverted without explanation of any kind, I'll wait for a bit to see what happens before moving on. It seems this could have been a whole lot easier, if only Wikipedia allowed for some way for editors to discuss things. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)