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 merge.

There is no validity, no sense, and no basis in policy or precedent for the argument that the target article must be cleaned up and updated before a merge can be performed.
There is exceedingly obvious vote stacking going on here, creating a (shabby) illusion of consensus to keep this article.
There are numerous completely unacceptable, unsubstantiated, uncivil personal attacks on users who advocate merging or deletion. That is not how we decide what to do with articles.
So, a lot of what is written here was, as dictated by policy, disregarded as irrelevant and/or bad faith.
Which leaves us with an actual consensus to merge the article back from whence it came. The target article can be updated and improved just as easily whether the merge has been done or not.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin three starred restaurants[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copy and paste from List of Michelin starred restaurants, without attribution or history. Not a split, just a copy. Duplication Detector Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% not a copy. Some overlap with List of Michelin starred restaurants, as they are on the same topic but the only "copy" in the article is the "former three starred restaurants" section which should understandably exist on both articles. This article is very thorough with images and details. The List of Michelin starred restaurants article lacks a list of Michelin three starred restaurants entirely- it has NONE!. The idea of deleting the article for having similarities with that article is ridiculous and offensive. As the author of this very thorough and accurate article, I believe it is important for the article to stay up. There are no inaccuracies and there is not a single other list on Wikipedia of Michelin's three starred restaurants. Features unique to the article include:

The only up to date list of the distribution of Michelin three star ratings by both country and city or town with cities and towns that are not even mentioned on List of List of Michelin starred restaurants.
14 images and counting that are not featured in the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. These images each serve to provide interesting and engaging details about different cities and towns on the lists as well as details about the well-known restaurants and chefs.
As I continue to work on the article, It will soon include details about the specific location of each restaurant's location and chef, something also not found on the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. I have already included these details for the three starred restaurants in China, France and Belgium.
The Number of three star restaurants per year (2005-present) is also unique to this article entirely.

I could go on with more and more unique traits to this excellent article. There is no credible reason to take this article down. It would be the equivalent of taking down the article Responsibility for the September 11 attacks because it is featured in the September 11th attacks article. A repetition of information is a crucial part of Wikipedia and building a vast detail of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk)

I completely agree with the author of the article that it is both important and unique and the idea of taking it down is "ridiculous and offensive". Amen

I don't know about ridiculous and offensive, but surly stupid. There is no reason to delete this article. Literally no reason whatsoever. It is very, very well written and very informational and I credit the author for his hard work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk)— 70.114.207.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammetsfan The above are not four edits, but only two. And I have requested an SPI to check if the two edits are not done by only one person, the author of the nominated article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it was just 1 person claiming to agree with sammetsfan. I will say that I think the article is worthy. I don't know why someone would want to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a new user, lacysanchez2: Surely unnecessary to delete the article in question. It appears to be informational and of good use. I found it to be interesting, thorough, accurate and original.

The article contains useful information. Sammetsfan makes the far superior case to keep the article up and in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.68.14 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — 174.253.68.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to List of Michelin starred restaurants, less the WP:OR "notably absent" countries and cities and captions with trivial stats. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete and redirect to List of Michelin starred restaurants. The only reason that the larger list supposedly didn't have this info was because User:Sammetsfan forked it off (diff: [1]). The other differences are all, as Clarityfiend said, WP:OR. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Sammetsfan: I REMOVED NOTHING FROM OF THE List of Michelin starred restaurants list! I take great offense at your false charges, for which you cannot have evidence because they are FALSE. The whole reason I wrote the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article is because no list existed. You really crossed the line. It's you and your LIES against everyone else and this article is going NOWHERE. Back off me. also from sammetsfan: Furthermore, the [List of Michelin starred restaurants]] country information is OUT OF DATE and the information on the distribution of three star restaurants in List of Michelin three starred restaurants is not out of date BECAUSE I WROTE IT USING 2012 STATS. You lose again. I'm done here. Back off hater.

Talking to me? Getting angry or shouting does not help. And I am certainly not a hater of Michelin restaurants. That would be a bit strange for someone who has written more dan 85 articles about Michelin starred restaurants Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from lacysanchez2: I must say, those who want the article deleted are doing a terrific job at ignoring the original points. sammetsfan has every right to be heated. the fact of the matter is the article has original and accurate information found nowhere else. a list of michelin three star restaurants, the only list that exists on wikipedia and the only up-to-date list i can seem to find online, is of good use. especially because of the country distribution stuff, which is the only up to date information on the distribution of three star restaurants by country. and especially because of the images with their original and interesting captions. one of my favorite articles, seriously. it is of great use. I think sammetsfan does not realize there is more than 1 person who wants to remove it but still...he's right. he's got the superior argument, as the unsigned user said. - lacysanchez2 (talk) ^(contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Sammetsfan: If I'm mistaken about the history of these articles (and I don't think I am, but I'm not perfect), I apologize. The available evidence in the histories does seem to support me. Even so, if I made you feel like I was attacking you, I'm sorry about that, and it wasn't my intent. I would appreciate it if you could remain civil, but I'm not taking it personally because I understand why you might feel attacked.

That said, I'd like to make a point - even assuming I'm wrong about the history, even assuming that you're right about the reasons for the new info, I would still be recommending a merge. I would be doing so on the grounds that althoug the existing list was insufficient in its original state, one list is still preferable to multiple lists unless it gets ridiculously long. I suggest that instead of creating the new one, you could have done a major cleanup, improvement, and bringing-up-to-date of the old one. And merging the new one into the old one can be done in such a way that it has the same end result as that cleanup effort. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Sammesfan: I apologize for becoming so uncivil and taking it so personally, but the list is very long and there are unique details to the three star restaurants worth mentioning on a separate page. I'm sorry I'm not superman but the cleanup of the original page is quite a project waiting to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me: "from Sammesfan" but posted by Lacysanchez2?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from Lacysachez2: Sorry, we are brother and sister and share a computer. I'm defending him firmly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Just step back and look at the article. It's totally necessary and full of detail. A model article for WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacysanchez2 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)][reply]

It appears this matter has been settled, no? The argument for this article's deletion has been thoroughly put to rest. When can we get rid of the notice that reads "This article is being considered for deletion" on top of the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article?
- No, actually, it hasn't. These discussions are supposed to last a week (give or take a couple of days), barring everyone being in agreement. Some are still in favor of deletion, and some (like me) are in favor of merging this back into the original as a way of improving the original. This was posted on the 15th, therefore it's due to close on the 22nd (Thursday). The administrator who closes this discussion will decide what the consensus of the group is indicating at the end of that time period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake then. I guess the argument for deletion comments in support of a merge. I can support a merge, although i think it would make the List of Michelin starred restaurants article too long and complex, only if all the details of this article can remain. I feel like the article List of Michelin three starred restaurants is perfect. It serves a purpose of providing a detailed list of the three starred restaurants. I can't really imagine a logical consensus determining that the article is not worthy. The only logical consensus I can imagine us coming to is one that realizes the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article is terrific.

Another problem with a merge is that the List of Michelin starred restaurants is out of date and requires tremendous expansion and clean up. Why not just leave the List of Michelin three starred restaurants as it is- up to date and complete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a problem, because the merger with solve (part of) the outdated information. But the article still warrents so stand alone article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well instead of disrespecting my hard work on this article by merging it with a messy and out of date article, we could just leave it as it is- harmless, helpful, informational and detailed. The argument to merge is wildly weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammetsfan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another argument against the merge and against deletion:
- The article has a detailed list of each restaurant that has received a three star rating. If it was to be merged, this insanely long list, with information on the location and chef at each restaurant, would be accompanied with no up to date or complete list of restaurants that have received one or two stars. If someone is willing to provide us with a list of restaurants, up to date, that have received one and then two stars from Michelin (as this list is essentially impossible to find), then a merge would be alot more understandable. You see what I'm saying? As is, I agree with sammetsfan than a merge would be silly and the argument for one is tremendously pitiful. Lacysanchez2 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like we are making some progress. Can we agree that the article should not be merged unless someone is willing to provide a detailed and up-to-date list of one and two starred restaurants with location and chef- as I have done for three starred restaurants? I would allow for a merge there. Seems like the only reasonable compromise. sammetsfan 19:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that that is the best option/only reasonable compromise. There is clearly no reason to delete the excellent article unless all it's information can be accompanied by equally excellent information on one and two starred restaurants in the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article. adirondacks 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.207.98 (talk) [reply]
- I hope someone is willing to create a full list of one and two starred restaurants with location and chef included, but in order to merge, up to date information on the distribution of countries would also have to be included, as well as a list of the number of one and two star restaurants per year (2005-present). So, a merge can happen, but there needs to be alot of work done before that is even close to appropriate. A this point, leave the List of Michelin three starred restaurants as it is, as it is excellent, and hopefully someone can work on a merge that provides detail. appletalk 19:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — appletalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All right then, I think we've reached a consensus. The information from the List of Michelin three starred restaurants shall merge with the List of Michelin starred restaurants article and the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article will thus be deleted, if and only if there is information of identical detail about one and two starred restaurants provided within the List of Michelin starred restaurants article. (So no merge right now/quite yet)

Agreed. I think we've reached a terrific compromise and consensus.
To Closing Admin: My !vote has not changed. I advocate a merge, followed by a delete of the separate article. I am going to recuse myself now from further participation in this discussion as I cannot think of anything else to say without becoming uncivil to the sockpuppets/meatpuppets/canvassing blatantly taking place in this discussion, but please review the edit history of this discussion before you close it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why a merge before a clean-up of the List of Michelin starred restaurants. You spitefully wish to see a perfect article get deleted without explaining your reasoning. The argument for rushing a merge and getting rid of a great article is essentially non existant.
- I support that opinion whole hearted! I have the nasty feeling that the whole discussion was in fact between undersigned, Jorgath and Clarityfriend one one side and Sammetsfan & reincarnations on the other side. I have never before seen an author so overly satisfied with his own work. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I am very satisfied with my work. Again, there is no argument against waiting to merge until a clean up. The consensus for a merge only after clean up of the List of Michelin starred restaurants makes the most sense, no? I feel you are not looking to compromise, but be unnecessarily stuck in your original idea/stubborn.
Keep - these are the best of the best, and a stand-alone list may be useful. Alternately, merge as has been suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be too immature, but thank you- it is good to have yet another supporter on my side. Despite the desperately false and accusatory claims of User:Night of the Big Wind, I think I do have quite a bit more people here on my side.
My closing argument: I feel that a merge, while it is not something I would suggest, would be appropriate only if the article List of Michelin three starred restaurants is merged with List of Michelin starred restaurants after the latter article is sufficiently cleaned up and updated. Otherwise, why take such an excellent and detailed and up to date and accurate article and put it in with a mess of outdated and incomplete information? We should keep the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article for the sake of providing an informed list of the most prestigious restaurants in the world. Those who are advocating for an immediate merge are consistently unable to produce an argument in reply to the several brilliant and detailed arguments in support of keeping the List of Michelin three starred restaurants article as it is. Here is another possible compromise, as my side seems to be the only side interested in consensus:
- Delete the List of Michelin starred restaurants, as it is out of date, incredibly incomplete and badly disorganized. Once adequate information on the lists of Michelin two starred restaurants and Michelin one starred restaurants is available, a master list can be compiled into one, perhaps less detailed master list with links to lists of one, two and three starred restaurants. Since there was no actual argument presented against the last compromise, is there any argument against this one? I personally still support the original compromise if I had to choose.
Why should we do that? It is not for you to decide how the merge is done. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Michelin starred restaurants. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that L2O in Chicago also previously had 3 stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.161.28 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of Michelin starred restaurants And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.