Talk:List of James Beard America's Classics

drafts
@Another Believer, fwiw there are a few drafts at User:Valereee/To_Do that I've started but haven't moved to article space as (short of developing consensus that the award itself conferred notability) I wasn't sure they were ready for prime time, but you should feel free to edit any of those and/or move them if you think they're good! Valereee (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Valereee Oh! Good to know. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, do you think this award does basically mean, "Yes, notable because of this award"? I haven't brought the idea up anywhere because my feeling is that the kneejerk will be "No More SNGs". :D But I kind of feel like it's a prestigious enough award that it would be defensible on that basis. Multiple sources call it (along with the other JBAs) something along the lines of 'the Oscars of the food world".
 * It's a bit easier with chefs and restaurants and cookbooks because there are nominees and then semifinalists and finally a single winner in each category, and a win typically gets broad coverage at minimum regionally. But this could be argued to simply be just a curated list released once a year. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say James Beard Award recipients are notable, yes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved your drafts into main space. Let's turn the red links blue! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So...you think we should create in article space, then? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course! I'm comfortable assuming all entries in this table are notable. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Tag
, I noticed you spun the article off, although in the original article, a lot of the contents were added by an SPA that reeks of PR editing, hence the newly added hat note Graywalls (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, @Graywalls, sorry, not following...I apparently didn't note which article was the original, my bad. Which article are you saying had PR editing? Valereee (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , You spun off from the James Beard Foundation Award, here, however much of the contents was added by many accounts that are indicative of PR activity in addition to the SPA I mentioned earlier, which is definitely a PR account based on one edit summary which says "Changes made by James Beard Foundation Publication Team (November 2015)" Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Graywalls, ah, thanks, of course...I'm an idiot! :D
 * So, what in this list article are you seeing as non-neutral? I'm happy to fix. I think between me and we've written 90% of this. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Unless any specific text can be flagged as problematic, I support tag removal. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have not gone through it thoroughly, although the edit pattern from where much of the information came from, in my opinion was enough to flag for UPE. Really the thing is that if the insertion was originally done by PR effort, we ought to evaluate if the inclusion is really due. Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a list of award winners, so there's not actually anything in it really could be undue except the lead, and there's no opinion there that isn't attributed. I kind of agree with AB, unless there is some specific concern we can address in those three pretty short paragraphs, the tag seems unnecessary...I mean, I'm willing to address concerns, but I'm not seeing any. It's like 100 words. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm totally open to fixing concerns, but AB or I probably wrote almost that entire lead. Sorry, maybe I'm just not understanding? Valereee (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valereee The tag has been removed. I think we can consider this resolved. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , do you think the list should be exhaustive, including non-notable red links citing the foundation itself which was inserted into the source article by foundation driven public relations effort? Graywalls (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Graywalls. I do, actually. Redlinks in this particular article are useful to see what articles are likely missing. The James Beard awards really are the Oscars of the US food world: the biggest deal in the industry. These are juried awards, made by experts in the field who have done their own due diligence through multiple rounds of voting. IMO the award itself is likely to support a claim to notability all by itself; it's hard to find an example that isn't notable, from my experience. I always still look for other sigcov, but this award is a Very Big Deal in the food world.
 * That said, which redlinks do you believe were inserted by the foundation, at either article? Valereee (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that the relevant PR editor hasn't made an edit in almost ten years and with only two articles, both of which I added long overdue connected user tags to their talk pages. It seems redundant to file a general caution to the editor's talk page now. Carlinal (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many PR accounts are used on "as needed" basis and only come back to make specific edits, but sometimes they're abandoned and new ones spawned out as needed. There's no such thing as "overdue". Simply not having been noticed for a length of time doesn't grandfather promotional or improperly sourced contents into acceptable contents. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)