Talk:Urban Plates

Creation
I am completely unaffiliated with Urban Plates other than being a customer. Just getting the article started. I have referenced Panera and Applebee's in an attempt to strike a neutral tone. Runxctry (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I have eliminated the notability banner inserted by, citing: Appreciate the contributions. Runxctry (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage - across multiple sources dating back to 2017.
 * Reliable - different 3rd party local, critical, and national sources
 * Sources - all secondary sources
 * Independent - presumably the press are not directly affiliated with the restaurant
 * Subject merits its own article - all articles are directly about the restaurant beyond a trivial mention.
 * You retained the Market Watch source which is indeed a press release. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability
I saw 's comment on Notability after I deleted the deleted the notability tag, apologies. I have scanned through the Notability page. My thoughts:
 * this is a large, complex, and philosophical issue related to Wikipedia's mission.
 * The reliability guideline seems much more clear and well-defined than the Notability guideline. Perhaps one leads to the next.  I initially learned more of this through 's contribution


 * Understood that Wikipedia isn't intended to be some ad hoc database or listing of all restaurants in the world
 * At the same time, which restaurants should be accepted? The grey area is huge and the black-and-white are quite small.  Black - hot dog cart in Central Park. White - McDonald's?  Cheesecake factory?  Panera Bread - which isn't even its own company anymore?
 * For an article to sound notable, it can often sound promotional to the beholder's eye. If one removes all "promotional-sounding" verbiage, all you're left with is routine information.  "Oh, McDonald's was the first restaurant to have assembly line and consistent quality.  How boring.  Let's fold that into the assembly line article."
 * Yet, there is a section for "exceptions". (ie allowing articles even though subject not notable). Allowing notable-yet-not-notable?  This it clearly an ongoing issue or "live discussion"...
 * It is actively being discussed on the talk page with recent contributions as of a couple weeks old.


 * Perhaps it's time for Wikipedia to come into its own.
 * It's not Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book, it's WIKIPEDIA. It can and arguably SHOULD host cloudsourced articles of notability even to small regional or demographic groups.
 * I am reminded of Wikipedia's credo to authors to "Be Brave" and allow articles to live on.
 * Especially in the absence of judge, jury and executioner on unclear guidelines, ad-hoc posting of Notability templates and deleting of articles can be very demoralizing to new contributors.
 * At worst, we are losing some collections of information. I refer to the widespread knowledge that Wikipedia overly represents some interests and not others; eg a great collection of Intel and AMD Processor detail and descriptions, not so much about knitting. In the meantime, the conversation on Notability must continue, and obviously not here =)

As always, thanks for your contribution. Runxctry (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, you have twice unilaterally removed notability templates from an article you have created, placed there by other editors – that's not "forbidden" but it is a little peculiar. Regarding notability and reliability, those are not the same thing. Notability for a company (as Wikipedia defines it) is shown through these means. Reliability refers to sources being reliable; there can certainly be reliable sources talking about non-notable companies or organisations, and being mentioned in a reliable source does not automatically infer notability for the subject. Yes, there can be a grey area. A cheesecake factory may or may not be notable – quite likely not, if it is a local or regional business. McDonald's is multinational and as you say pretty clear-cut.  But as you say, that discussion is irrelevant here; the issue here is that according to the article, Urban Plates is a regional restaurant chain, where four out of five sources are primary (press releases and interviews) and the fifth (Marketwatch) is a 404 link but according to that URL it is also a press release. Hence, notability is not clearly shown. --bonadea contributions talk 13:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Added another source.

Need to work and think about all this. When does the article get deleted? Ah, Cheesecake Factory is becoming well-known in the US as one of the highest-end white-tablecloth restaurant chains (however contradictory those may be =)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheesecake_Factory

Yet it's "only" got 6x the number of restaurants as Urban Plates and despite my assertion that it's well-known, you didn't know about it; point being that notability is so subjective. Thanks for making the guidelines more clear, and I do appreciate them as a way to improve Wikipedia. Just trying to understand the line (however wide and grey it may be) and seeing how it applies here.

PS Thanks for helping improve those sources! Do you have some kind of script, or do you do it manually? Runxctry (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)