Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

L'Auberge (restaurant)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Long-defunct restaurant, only incidental mentions in articles about non-notable chef and in directories. Fails WP:ORG. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Michelin Stars and multiple reliable sources not count towards notability? --86.40.106.131 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What only matters is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. These are all Dutch-language publications, and I have no idea if they are reliable. Even assuming that, none of the coverage is significant. All the articles are on the chef. Michelin stars alone do not convey notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Michelin stars convey notability! What better measure is there for a restaurant? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course a Dutch restaurant will mainly or even only be mentioned in Dutch sources. WP:NOENG clearly allows RS in other languagues. And as said by others a Michelin Star let alone two is a pretty good indicator of notability. The Michelin Guide is a RS, being awarded one or more stars by them is comparable to winning an Academy Award by an movie actor. Also notability is not temporary, so disestablishment doesn't preclude it from inclusion. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Surely a Michelin star recipient is notable from a historical perspective, even if defunct. Restaurants come and go. Should articles about them on Wikipedia be removed accordingly? Not sure what criteria for notability should apply if this is not sufficient. RashersTierney (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it otherwise fails WP:CORP? I don't think so. I scoured the notability criteria and WP:OUTCOMES, and I could find no justification for that position, which I know has been expressed. If that was so, what more could we say about this or any such restaurant? This is a tiny article by virtue of the fact that it has had no coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The House (restaurant) is a Michelin starred restaurant that was kept because of its michelin stars.... Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the participants in that discussion state:
 * Meets the general notability guideline, per the sources already provided and the Michelin rating
 * The references provided are sufficient to establish notability. We ought to have an article about every restaurant with a Michelin rating, rather than deleting this article
 * Night of the Big Wind talk  22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic is outside my usual area but I have asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but I wish you could have phrased your post more neutrally, to conform with WP:CANVASS. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite generous with your accusations of canvassing. Asking a question or just telling somebody "that he really has nominated the article" is not canassing, unless you use WP:ABF. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not made up my mind on this issue. There was no canvassing. Please strike the implication that there was. RashersTierney (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You said, "I would be amazed if a Michelin star recipient was not of itself notable, but I may be mistaken." That's not neutral language. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering your trenchant position, you should be a bit more circumspect in making accusations of canvassing. I certainly will be amazed if responses indicate no inherent notability in these awards, but I have no preference one way or the other. RashersTierney (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Trenchant? Yes, I suppose so. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep (as author) Revenge nomination. The restaurant was awarded two Michelin stars at the time she went bankrupt. Notability tag appeared already 1 minute after publishing the article. Article does satisfy WP:ORG as it states in the footnotes Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG requires deep coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." All we have is a very brief, incomplete stub, and evidently that's all there ever will be. This restaurant was alive for only a brief period of time. Were there an article on the chef, this could be merged into the article on him. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the footnotes of WP:ORG, my friend. Mentioning in the MIchelin Guide alone is enough for notability. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete. see below All references count only as trivial. The Michelin guide is a directory and nothing more. However, two of the sources may warrant an article on the chef, Emmanuel Mertens. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Create an article on Emmanuel Mertens and redirect this one there. On second thought, I believe that's the most sensible solution. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability for this restaurant is demonstrated by the independent reliable sources, that provide significant coverage about the subject (in this case, the two Volkskrant articles). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Volkstrant articles were not about the restaurant, but about the chef. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One article has about 10 paragraphs directly about the restaurant, the other articles main subject is the kitchen of the restaurant. I think we can both agree that saying The kitchen of restaurant L'Auberge is notable, but the restaurant itself is not, is beyond silly. That is significant coverage by any measure. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Restaurants generally get Michelin stars based on the qualities of the head chef (apart from things like presentation). I remember the restaurant Parkheuvel in my home town Rotterdam went from 3 (!) to 1 star after the chef left. So that's why media coverage will largely go about the chef just like there were many news articles about Apple which mainly covered Steve Jobs. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps there should be an article on the chef. The articles all focus on him. Apple is independently notable, but this restaurant clearly is not. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Restaurant Gordon Ramsay is notable? You could also argue that it's only famous because it is owned by a famous chef. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Martijn Hoekstra; and as to the broader question, yes, a two-star Michelin rating should certainly be taken as a very strong indicium of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - A Micheline star is simply a review, and it is standard practice within the Food and Drink project that reviews by themselves do not connote notability regardless of the source of the review. This includes reliable sources such as the New York Times, Esquire, and other well-known publications, including the Micheline guide. To connote notability of a restaurant you must have actual articles about the operation. So no matter how many stars the restaurant received in Micheline, it would not be notable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A Michelin star is simply a review? Don't be ridiculous. Michelin stars are the world's top awards for restaurants. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You manage to consistently misspell the name Michelin. Which might indicate (nothing personal) that you don't know what you are talking about. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 01:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have only been working in the hospitality field for the past 30 years in several different restaurants from fast food to fine dining; my father-in-law was a food chemist for the US DOD, my wife went to Newbury College for culinary arts and my brother to New England Culinary Institute as a chef. I have been immersed, lived and operated in this field for longer than some commentators have been alive, so I have a good idea what I am talking about. Despite what you think it is, Michelin is at its root a travel guide just like those published by Fodor's, the AAA and the CAA etc. While it is held in high regard and restauranteurs strive to get good ranking from it, it is still a review. It publishes the subjective opinion of its reviewers and not hard facts about the restaurant in question as required by WP:Note. It is the same thing as reviews by famous food critics in noted publications such as the New York Times, and it is no different - it does establish notability because of its subjective nature. Comparing it to an Academy Award is spurious in nature because Michelin stars are significantly different in nature; Academy Awards are peer awards from people who work in the film industry. It is the people who work in the field (directors for directors, actors for actors etc) recognizing their peers' best work in the specific field in which they work. Analogues to them would be the Emmy Awards, the Grammy Awards, the Tony Awards or even the Clio Awards. Other similar awards exist in the architecture, publishing and culinary fields. The Nobel Prize award was created by an explosives manufacturer who wanted to use his fortune to improve humanity as a whole and established a foundation to seek out the very best of mankind. One such analogue is the James Beard Foundation, where an individual sought to use his legacy to recognize the best in the culinary field. Michelin is a tire company that publishes travel guides as part of their business of selling tires, in the hope you will drive to these locations and in the process wear out your tires and buy more tires from them. They also rate campgrounds and tourist attractions and other similar things. In regards to my typo (a result of dyslexia and not ignorance), may I remind you to comment on the subject and not the commentator. For what its worth I have no opinion about the subject, I was just stating the guidelines used by WP:Food to help determine notability of restaurants. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies then. It was late yesterday and I looked at your userpage and found a userbox This user eats at Burger King so that's why that slipped out. I also sometimes (not often) eat at Burger King but you can often get a good deal at a nicer restaurant for not much more. The Michelin guide started as a guide for drivers listing all the places where they could buy petrol/gas and get their cars fixed, as in the earliest days of motoring there were no filling stations and not many garages. They later thought it was a good idea to also list restaurants so people knew where they could find something good to eat along the road. That's how a tire company became famous for restaurant reviews. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A moment's study of Jeremy's talk page will show that he makes something of a specialism of fine dining experiences. A "Micheline" incidentally is something quite different, but still distinctively French. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you 100% sure that ad hominem comments about persons you disagree with are going to persuade the closing administrator? I'm not so sure. But if you're convinced of that, fire away. So far, no one has shown any evidence that this restaurant has received so much as a single article on itself, as opposed to the non-notable chef. Instead the defenders of this article are relying on a footnote in the notability guidelines, which I don't believe commits Wikipedia to retaining articles on restaurants otherwise non-notable. Now, feel free to respond by telling me to go back to my hamburgers. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the adres is still known, here it is (on an outdated site). Besides there are several articles who mentioned we have two from De Volkskrant and one from De Telegraaf. You seem to want an article about the restaurant which doesn't mention the chef, that is impossible because the head chef is the core of a fine dining restaurant, Michelin star winning or not. The articles referenced on the Fleur de Lys restaurant mentioned in this AfD also go on for several paragraphs about the chef. There could be some more information about the food they served, the entourage etc, but unless you go to the archive rooms of several Dutch newspapers (they still haven't digitized everything so you'll probably have to search on microfilms) it's hard to come by that information. Historical subjects (which this is even if it is recent history) can't be expected to be overly detailed. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Where to begin? First of all, a two-star listing in the Michelin Guide creates a very strong presumption though not conclusive proof, of notability.  In all honesty, one Michelin star does so in my opinion.  It would be astounding to think that a two star Michelin restaurant had not received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether or not such coverage from the 1980s and 1990s is readily available online in 2011.  One editor says "the Michelin guide is a directory and nothing more".  This is like saying that the Academy Awards are prizes that Hollywood types give each other and nothing more.  Or, the Nobel Prize is just another award for scientists and nothing more.  Or the Pulitzer Prize is just another award for writers, and nothing more.  The fact is that the Michelin Guide is indisputably the most authoritative reliable source for the notability of fine dining establishments in the world, and only a few hundred restaurants worldwide are rated two stars each year.  Only 13 in Paris this year, and only six in Northern California, where I live.  Another editor says that this restaurant "was alive for only a brief period of time" when the article states that it held one or two Michelin stars for a period of fifteen years, or significantly longer than Wikipedia itself has existed.  That same editor claims to be unable to evaluate the reliability of de Volkskrant although that publication has an article here on English Wikipedia that verifies that it has been publishing since 1919 and is the third largest circulation newspaper in the Netherlands.  There isn't the slightest hint that this newspaper is unreliable.  The fact that sources are in Dutch is in no way a negative, as this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world.  The argument has been advanced that an article that gives significant coverage to a restaurant does not establish notability if it also discusses the restaurant's chef in detail.  In response, I will say only that a single in-depth article can be used to establish the notability of two or more topics.  The articles in de Volkskrant allude to in-depth coverage in other publications: "The Dutch restaurant guide Lekker called L'Auberge in late 1996, two months after the opening 'the best restaurant in the Netherlands'." (Google translate).  So, we have the Michelin Guide reviewing the restaurant for 15 years in a row, and two in-depth articles in a major Dutch newspaper, plus a report that a Dutch restaurant guide called it the best restaurant in the country.  I am truly mystified by this nomination.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely a revenge nomination, having no clue about fine dining and a strong pro-American bias that him forces to nominate articles with sources he can not read. ehm, and what about Google Translate, mate? Too difficult? And a refusal to admit mistakes. :-) Night of the Big Wind  talk  04:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I read the articles in Google Translate. That's how I learned that this restaurant had only received incidental coverage. I haven't found a single article on the restaurant itself, not a single review. Have you? ScottyBerg (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The restaurant existed mainly in the pre-public internet era. The first Dutch ISP which offered public internet began operating in 1993, the first newspaper sites began in 1994. Since the restaurant closed in 1999 and the chef left the year before that gives an online coverage era of 4/5 years. And Dutch newspapers don't put all their articles online, especially in the early years of the internet they put only a few on their site. So the lack of a review online does not mean that the restaurant was never reviewed by a major source. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 14:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So if we have no information on a restaurant, not even its address, not a single article can be found about it, just the fact that it got a star in Michelin, it warrants a separate article in Wikipedia? That's preposterous. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what I think is needed is coverage of the restaurant itself, and not speculation that such coverage may exist somewhere. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's all chill Don't speculate about ScottyBerg's or Jeremy's gastronomic tastes. I've eaten at Lumière and Fleur de Lys (lemme guess no Michelin stars between them?), but last Sunday at 6:30am I was standing in line with crackheads getting my Egg McMuffin - doesn't prove nothing. The process is working fine, no animals will be harmed in the closing of this AfD. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I encountered this particular clique of editors, I've been insulted "six ways from Sunday." But that doesn't make an article about a totally obscure restaurant, one that died swiftly after receiving almost no attention, even the slightest bit notable. I am struck, however, by the tactics employed by some editors on this page. Since I've never disclosed any gastronomic preferences except a fondness for pumpkin pie, which I only disclosed about a half hour ago, I'm unclear as to where this intelligence on my dining experiences come from. In any event, I doubt that the closing administrator will be swayed, but I guess anything's possible. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be pleased to know, LoveUxoxo, that Fleur de Lys has a Michelin star for 2011. Accordingly, I have removed the notability tags from that article.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That restaurant gets mentioned about 4 times every year in the San Francisco Chronicle, I'm sure that its notability shouldn't be in doubt. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a clear memory of in-depth coverage of that place well over 35 years ago, shortly after I moved to San Francisco.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Request for speedy close as keep It is clear that an overwhelming majority here thinks that Michelin starred restaurants are plain notable. The nominator ignores the WP:ORG-policy, that he brings in as argument for deletion. WP:ORG states in his foornotes: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. But nominator refuses to accept that without usefull reason. This discussion is becoming more and more a joke a should be relieved of its misery by a speedy close as keep. Night of the Big Wind  talk  06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD discussions are not votes, and this AfD has been tarnished by improper canvassing at the food project and personal attacks. There is a good-faith dispute over the notability of this article, which in the final analysis is a perma-stub based on trivial coverage about a long-vanished restaurant established by a non-notable chef. It's absurd to argue that a listing in a guidebook is sufficient to establish the notability of a restaurant that did not even leave a lasting impression during its brief existence. User:Jerem43, a food services professional, pointed out the guidelines used by the food project to determine notability, and was viciously attacked for it. I'm not surprised that there hasn't been more participation by editors favoring deletion of this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it not be that you three are the only ones who consider a Michelin starred restaurant not notable? Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not a numerical vote. A Michelin star is one of the factors that can be taken into account in establishing notability. A rigid "Michelin star=notability' standard makes no sense. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? One Michelin star, not to mention two or three, is widely regarded as the summum a restaurant can reach. A recognition of the supreme quality in food served. Michelin Guide should be interesting reading for you. The Guide is already considered notable. Why resist the obvious? Take a look at Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants and see a list of more then 200 Michelin starred restaurants. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because as I just pointed out above, it means that we could have articles on restaurants containing no information other than that they have received a Michelin star, since notability is permanent and many restaurants have vanished without a trace and have little or no information available about them at present. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true, but thise articles will not be of my hand :-) But the notability guidelines approve such short, nothing telling articles as long as it is backed up with reliable independent sources, like the Michelin Guide. It would be perfectly okay when I write an article about the restaurant "Au Coin des Bons Enfants" in Maastricht and state that they had one Michelin star in the period 1958-1980 and nothing more, as long as I properly source it. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  17:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would reiterate Cullen's statement that "a two-star listing in the Michelin Guide creates a very strong presumption though not conclusive proof, of notability", which echoes the statement in WP:ORG quoted above. It's reasonable to start with that assumption, but that isn't an automatic article on WP for every Michelin two-star restaurant (though, considering chefs kill themselves when they lose a star, I'd expect enough WP:RS coverage generated from Michelin's rankings to easily prove WP:N). Admitting you like pumpkin pie though is fairly close to trolling, and may require administrator intervention. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Many passing mentions, as here, are not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per basic common sense. Do we really want Wikipedia to be made a laughing stock where porn actors nominatated for a couple of AVN awards, and footballers who have appeared as last-minute substitutes in League 2, have articles but not Michelin-starred restaurants? Have we lost all perspective on what constitutes notability in the real world? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're going to find a WP:RS for that first figure; but there are WP:RS figures for the audiences at League 2 grounds which are going to clearly going to out-rank L'Auberge. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't go there. More people have heard about Paris Hilton than about Robert Noyce, so Noyce is a less important figure in world history than Hilton? SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Michelin stars provide strong evidence of notability, as do the newspaper articles. Given the period that the restaurant flourished, finding online sources may be difficult but the online sources that we do have a are sufficient of themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Relying on the imperfect Google Translate I agree that the sources focus more on chef Emmanuel Mertens than L'Auberge but there are enough specific references to L'Auberge I think to keep this article and hope for further expansion. We shouldn't give a free pass based on Michelin stars, but the benefit of doubt in a close case is OK by me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We judge notability according to notability in the RW, not in our own fancies. The world of restaurants regards the Michelin stars as the highest honors, and even a one star restaurant is intrinsically and automatically notable, and nothing else need be shown. More should always be shown, and always can be, because everywhere these restaurants generate multiple reviews and discussions. "A Michelin star is only a review" shows no attention to proportion: The phrasing use is always "awarded" a star, and these are th awards of highest international prestige. These awards do have a considerable degree of ethnocentrism, and it is certainly very possible for other restaurants to be notable also.  For some of the nay-sayers above, they ask so much that I think they'd consider nothing notable. When we say notability is not popularity, we mean that popularity is not required for notability .  DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The weight to be given the Michelin ratings intrigued me, so I did some research.  It appears that being Michelin-rated has regularly carried the day at AfD many times before since 2005, see, e.g., Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) (July 2011);  Articles for deletion/Zafferano (May 2010 - kept as no consensus due to lack of discussion, no delete votes except nom); Articles for deletion/Bagatelle restaurant (October 2008); Articles for deletion/French Laundry (April 2008 - here you may pause and wonder who the hell in their right mind would nominate that one); Articles for deletion/Masa (restaurant) (July 2007); Articles for deletion/Le Bec Fin (December 2005); see also Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20 (June 2009); Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (restaurants) (October 2008).  So its fair to say that Michelin stars are strong evidence of notability, and has been a de facto indicaton of notability in practice.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  05:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michelin stars and sources. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.