Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-star 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 of the debate was KEEP. Article has undergone substantial change during the debate. -Splash talk 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Three-star restaurant
A pure dictdef. Was tagged for speedy, but foes have context. however it has no content beyond a dictdef. Delete. DES (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a "pure dictdef". The content has now been expanded to stub-grade. There is much potential for development. For one, the Michelin Guide, widely considered the top of the heap for high-end gastronomy, gives a very limited number of its highest, the three-star rating (I believe, currently only 50 in the world). So, there is a clear distinction between a "three-star restaurant" and any other star rating. A top chef in France recently committed suicide, with some news reports citing the rumored impending demotion of his restaurant from Michelin three-star to two-star as the reason. Some people take their (three) stars more seriously than simply a dictdef. --Tsavage 03:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Restaurant Rating System; otherwise delete. Flyboy Will 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tsavage said everything I was going to say, only better. Endomion 04:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Tsavage. Well known, important concept, quite worthy of expansion.  Smerdis of Tlön 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef. Sure, it's notable but I don't see what content beyond a definition will ever go here. Ifnord 16:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Keep this rewritten stub. Good job! Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The content in the current stub has already gone beyond a dictionary definition. For example, the Michelin three-star rating is a big deal in the restaurant world; naming and discussing the impact of three stars on those restaurants is one obvious expansion direction. In any case, I suppose I should read up on whatever specific definition of dictdef you're using, but a phrase almost always seems like it would NOT be simply a dictdef, a phrase stands for something that usually can be described, and has a story. This is Wikipedia, the open, anyone-can-edit, interactive encyclopedia with tens of thousands of active contributors and nearly a million articles on the Web, I don't see why we're trying to limit this, rather than see if it can go somewhere? What is the point? If there is a chance for expansion, as demonstrated by the stub, give it a break!?! --Tsavage 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You know, AfD is often a good way to improve articles. Myself, I have rewritten articles because I saw them listed on AfD and thought they deserved a chance. Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Move to Restaurant Ratings - this is the start of a worthwhile article that should include Michelin's three star system, AAA's and Mobil's five star system, Sagat's and Fodor's systems, and any other internationally-recognized system... and then have lists of the restaurants that made the top ranking in each of those systems. B.Wind 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a Move be beyond the scope of this particular AfD, since this stub is not equivalent to a restaurant ratings article? If that article were to be created, this content could possibly be merged there, and if so, this article then turned into a redirect. But as it is, while this article may be a future redirect or a subarticle of a currently non-existent restaurant ratings article, a Move doesn't seem to make sense. Or is this just another way of saying that "three-star restaurant" shouldn't have its own encyclopedia listing, i.e. it should be deleted? --Tsavage 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is improving the article in question "beyond the scope" of an AfD? I say not --I contend that "three-star restaurant" without context is an improper title for what is clearly an article that will delineate exceptional restaurants. A Michelin guide's "three star restaurant" is supposedly superior to a "three star restaurant" as listed in a Mobil guide or the New York Times. A rename is definitely needed here to provide context for the search as well. The stub is good, but it cannot stand alone with the current name. It would be far better to change the name (with Wikipedia, that's a "move") and allow the expansion into a solid all-around article encompassing more than the Michelin guide (and if it's only supposed to cover Michelin three star restaurants, then a move to that page would be best). B.Wind 06:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm brand new to AfD so perhaps bear with me. I understand what you (and the other Move/Merge proponents) are suggesting. It sounds quite logical, and I understand the appeal of "let's just clean it all up in one bureacratic move." But I'm also interested in how procedures like this can work without contributing undue bias from relatively tiny minorities within the "community" (like a decision voted on by a handful of people). Flexible interpretation is great, but makes it all the more necessary that the "rules" are continually made clear. Here, if the orginal AfD was based on an article being no more than a dictdef, and that condition has satisfactorily been changed, is that not the end of that particular AfD? On one hand, we don't want to get mired down in endless bureaucratic detail and red tape, on the other, there should be quite clear scope for each procedure and process, else it becomes difficult to participate without getting mired in dealing with extraneous aspects. In this case, if three-star restaurant is (now) a proper stub, what are the grounds for AfD, and where are they stated? --Tsavage 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question - In the AfD nomination, what does "foes have context" mean? --Tsavage 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was just created and has already been nicely expanded. Give the users some time to write the article. SandBoxer 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is a good stub right now, and looks like there is potential for growth, Four-star restaurant looks like it's spun off of this one, if signifigant development does not occur, merging would be called for to a new article encompassing rating restaurants, but there is not one to merge to yet, perhaps several stubs will combine in the future. xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And Four-star restaurant should be incorporated into Restaurant ratings as I explained above: the name itself provides no context. Ultimately, Three-star restaurant, Four-star restaurant, and Five-star restaurant will have to be merged and expanded together. The sooner it's done, the easier the transition to the united article will be. B.Wind 06:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems to be an arbitrary way of determining how content evolves on WP. I think that, despite all types of not-getting-the-concept entries, vandalism, stupidity, whatnot, any entry that someone took the time to make has potential value. I can understand deletion when no case whatsoever can be made for an article (but that would be rare). Here, I can easily think of circumstances: An American traveller goes to France, encounters a ton of conversation about "three-star restaurants" (referring to the distinct, rare Michelin award), and wants to know, "What's up with three-star restaurants?" Well, he could get redirected to and have to read through a restaurant article, or a restaurant guide article, a restaurant rating system article, a restaurant review article, a restaurant criticism article, or whatever. Or, if there was sufficient topic-specific information, he could go directly to a three-star restaurant article that would proceed to quickly and efficiently, in an encyclopedia-like manner, answer the question. Isn't that part of the boundless electronic Webness of WP, the potential for things to be made more accessible than before? (I realize I may be exaggerating for this particular instance, but it's really the principle...) --Tsavage 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the other appropriate article(s) into Restaurant ratings or something, until such point as it gets too big for one article (I don't expect that soon). &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Restaurant Ratings per B. Wind. This article realy needs to be expanded to include other well-known rating systems, but that cannot happen under the existing title. D e nni &#9775;  20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Restaurant ratings with a redirect. A "three-star restaurant" is of considerable significance if you know the speaker is referring to the Michelin Guide, or it's of jack-shit significance if you know he's referring to AAA's ratings, or it's of completely unknown significance if you don't know the intended context.  I could post a website with three asterisks next to the McDonald's name, but it wouldn't confer widely notable prestige.  Barno 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you merge an article with something that doesn't exist? --Tsavage 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Create the new title, copy relevant content from the old article, and copy relevant content from other articles on restaurant ratings systems. Then delete-with-redirect the old articles.  Not a logical contradiction in Wiki terms, regardless of how you might interpret the English.  Barno 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I see it (and please correct me if I am misguided), had the article been originally written as the acceptable stub it is now, instead of as a dicdef, then there would have been no basis for submitting it as an AfD. Since that is in fact the current situation, how can a now-invalid AfD be used as justification for deciding how to title and organize articles in the general subject area of restaurant ratings...? In any case, all of that can be done as a matter of course in normal editing, so why is it being discussed here under AfD? --Tsavage 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There would have been no basis for submitting it as a dicdef, but there may still well have been those concerned that the topic was restrictive, since (as per much discussion abouve) that three-star rating is not the only one in existence. I have moved this article to Restaurant rating, where it can be updated to include other rating schemes. D e nni &#9775;  01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, so it is as I thought. Once the article was turned into an (acceptable) stub, this AfD was closed. All the rest of the votes are essentially irrelevant, since there was no longer a basis for deletion, and what you did with the move and redirect could have been done by anyone, at any time... Thanks... --Tsavage 01:52, 29 December 2005 (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.