Mon 26th July 2010, 8:16pm
The discussion here is also astonishing.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rant_notability
How do you point out the bleeding obvious to people who are incapable of appreciating its bleeding obviousness?
Cyclopia I don't follow this argument at all. You are arguing that applying measurable criteria to determine the overall significance of something equates to bias. All "notability" policies are expressly involved with such significance. Something of only local interest is not of interest to the broad audience of an encyclopedia. It is obvious why we have this language in the policy.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Should we avoid to cover specialized academic subjects because they could not be "of interest to the broad audience of an encyclopedia"? Of course not. For the same reason, we shouldn't bias our coverage by refusing to use local RS. It is not "obvious", given that this guideline (not policy!) is the only one I'm aware that specifically singles out local sources as unsuitable - WP:GNG does nothing of the sort, and it is our main guideline for notability. --Cyclopiatalk 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia, clearly "significance" is not simply measured in brute quantity. Academic subjects usually do not suffer from the same "local vs. global" issue that is concerning us here. Academic communities are usually transnational or global (yes that's a step beyond national, and two steps beyond regional), even if they are small. The subject matters of academic pursuits may be of interest to any lay reader who is digging further into a subject matter that is, once again, of universal interest. Do you care to give an example of an academic subject we cover that you would argue it is on par with? It might be better to discuss this with a concrete example in mind. I await it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh and someone has spotted the false claim award. Well spotted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=375571044
James Beard Foundation Award nomination
The article states that the restaurant was nominated for a James Beard Foundation Award as "best new restaurant". The sources used are an unidentified PDF file and a magazine website. The former appears to be some kind of voting form, and the text for the latter was almost certainly submitted by the restaurant themselves (that's just how it works, folks). Using the search form on the James Beard Foundation site, I was unable to find any listing for "daryl" or "david drake". Can someone please confirm my results? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 Definitive results (inaccurate claim)
This was painstaking because of the lack of browsability on the website but I found a list of the winner and the FOUR other nominees for "Best New Restaurant". This link will take you there - 2008 Best New Restaurant. The promo piece linked to in the magazine was clearly incorrect, but then again it is hardly a WP:RS in the first place. It's very disappointing to see this inaccuracy coming to light on top of everything else.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daryl_Wine_Bar_and_Restaurant"
Disappointing but hardly unexpected.
 And Jimbo even brings in Mzoli's meats:
It's not up to me to decide policy at that level of scale, and so I offer only a general opinion. I think that having such articles is not within the scope of Wikipedia for a number of reasons, more or less along the lines that Griswaldo has outlined. It should be noted, since it accidentally and foolishly made headlines a few years ago, that I started the entry Mzoli's, but I did so on the premise that the restaurant is culturally interesting, as it has been popular with both whites and blacks in a South African township, and because of various complexities surrounding its impact on the community.
.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)