Talk:Mzoli's/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opening comment

I had lunch in this place and it is apparently quite notable locally and known internationally. Mention was made of press coverage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2007

Bzzzt... Original research! Sorry, sir, we can't accept it – 217.44.232.180 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That isnt OR, please seeWP:OR for an explanantion of what OR is. And we can accept it and it appears we will do so as well based on the afd, SqueakBox 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my having lunch there was just an interesting tidbit about how I first came to know of the place. I did not intend to do any original research. Once I get my camera unpacked (just arrived in Florida now), I will upload some photos to illustrate the article.--Jimbo Wales 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will these photos be forthcoming? __meco 15:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

POV deletion proposals

The place is clearly one of the more notable establishments in Capetown, South Africa, the subject of considerable coverage. It is notable as a famous place that a lot of people know about and attracts important politicians and well-known entertainers. It is also a gathering place and an important example of a black-owned busines that is part of South Africa's new economic development programs.

The primary source, "Youth Radio", is a reliable source even if the reporters are in their late teens - does Wikipedida have a bias against young people? It's an internationally syndicated radio program that practices serious journalism and is broadcast on NPR stations, among others.

The original version of the article, which I have not seen, was deleted almost instantly. In the past few minutes since this completely new article was created it has been proposed for speedy deletion twice as spam, blatant advertising, attacked as non-notable, had its sources challenged, etc. I can't imagine what else might be challenged by the time I finish this message.

This is a real article about a real, notable business that has received international press. It's sourced. If it's deficient it can be expanded and improved.

I've never seen a neutral, informative article under such fierce attack so quickly. I can only surmise that this has something to do with Jimbo Wales being the one who created the first version. In that case, all of these challenges suffer from WP:POINT. Wikidemo 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No it had to do with WP:CSD#A7, in other words the nominator thought it fails to assert notability/importance. I really doubt that JW being the creator would influence somebody to PROD this, on the contrary that could only help the article when known, regardless of that I do think that it was to early for AFD, the article should be marked as a stub and left alone for a few month to allow development if no development occurs after a extended period of time then PROD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of articles, and I've never seen it happen quite this way. The original article wasn't deleted through normal CSD process at all; the second version drew a flood of hasty deletion attempts in a way you never see, even for a recreation of a deleted article. I know we're a meritocracy and Jimbo can take care of himself, but the evident glee some people have putting him in his place for creating an unsourced article seems a little petty. But yes, it's also part of a larger problem of people getting strident in trying to make sure articles stay dead once they've been killed. Wikidemo 10:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't speak to the rest, but the first deletion was a completely routine CSD A7[1], as we would do to any article about a company that does not assert its significance. I am looking at the version deleted right now and I can say it was a valid A7 deletion, all it said was "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-routine thing about that deletion was process. It wasn't deleted on sight or at AFD. Instead it was brought up on the administrator's notice board where people expressed some amusement that Jimbo did it, and then it was deleted immediately. That was the right result for the wrong reason. For the record I was alerted to this article by the brief discussion there but did not recreate the article solely based on Jimbo's having written the original one. I've recreated several speedily deleted business and bio articles where I thought the business in question was notable and worth having in Wikipedia, doing my best to overcome the initial reasons for deletion. I've also substantially rewritten a few articles that were up for deletion, for the same goals. I've come across those articles in different ways, sometimes at AFD, sometimes because they're discussed somewhere else. So far, knock on wood, none of my rescued articles have been deleted. So my comment about this one being unique is based on some anecdotal experience. Being on either side of the deletion debate without acknowledging that Mr. Wales has something to do with it is like trying to ignore the elephant in the room. The result to keep is right but there sure has been some wikidrama along the way, which tends to confirm his comment (in the deletion debate) that some people are taking this too far -- the drama that is, not upholding Wikipedia standards. Wikidemo 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The way this article was treated just underscores what many normal users/occasional contributors like me think: Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a place where admins run wild, drunken with their power! Deletion is becoming the norm. And if a users complains, he'll get a lot of flak about aqll those Wiki rules he violated. However, by a closer look at the rules, what's really going on is that many times the admins themselves are violating the spirit of Wikipedia: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both." You can't build an encyclopedia if sadistic admins prohibit every attempt of the users to contribute something. More help and patience, less rigorous action, pls! 89.182.73.109 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think admins run wikipedia let me assure you that you are profoundly mistaken. Its the editord who count here. Delete to 1 million articles? Yes. Delete this one in the process? No way, SqueakBox 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Future source

"Business now normal after attacks, say tour operators" at the Cape Times. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] - more possible sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.24.202 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Page log of previous name

In case anyone is wondering why they can't find the speedy deletion logs for this article, it was speedied, recreated, undeleted and merged under a previous name (Mzoli's). See page log here. Carcharoth 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now moved back, so see here for the history at Mzoli's Meats. Carcharoth 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A Day in the Life

I just read A Day in the Life of an Article and while I'm not surprised (it's happened to me), I think it is outrageous what transpired. Someone should loose their adminship over this. Editors should be given time to develop an article, in particular when they leave a note saying they need some time! Forget all the rules, it is just common courtesy and being respectful - there are too many users on Wikipedia who use the rules to the letter to act like jerks and a-holes, which drives away good civil people and is increasingly leaving Wikipedia a wasteland of miscreants and/or teaching them how to behave that way. -- 71.191.36.194 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the only admin action taken was a perfectly valid one I don't see your point. No need to resort to personal attacks to make that point either. While it is possible we will drive Jimbo away from this site, that is just the chance we have to take to enforce our inclusion standards. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article fits our inclusionist standards (and this from a mostly deletionist like myself), is notable and about a neglected part of wikipedia, Africa. Incivility wont help further any argument on wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the problems of incivility are people using the rules to be dicks, we even have a page about it, Don't be a dick. There are tons of guidelines that address this problem, that tell editors to go by the spirit of the rule and not the letter, to go easy on newbies, etc.. there needs to be consequences for people running around bullying people, it drives good editors away. -- 71.191.36.194 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the view of 71.x.x.x. Too many editors here seem to get personal pleasure from bullying occasional contributors. Imho Wikipedia has becomew increasingly frustrating for occasional users. 89.182.73.109 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

Isn't "well-known" a POV and a peacock term? --Agüeybaná 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And "poor" and "famous"? --Agüeybaná 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to "Mzoli's is a well-known butchery", "Gugulethu, a poor black neighbourhood" and "famous DJs such as DJ Fresh" which are currently in the article. I don't believe "well-known" is POV because it is not a value judgement, just a statement that many people know about it. I prefer it to "famous" which has more of a positive connotation. Regarding the idea that it's a "peacock term" I don't think it's easy or helpful to try to prove that something is well-known via examples, it's better should just look for RSs saying "famous" "notorious" or whatever. Regarding "poor" I'd prefer a less negative-sounding term, but I don't think we would want to try to "show" it's not a wealthy neighbourhood eg. by citing statistics, especially since this is just setting context for the topic at hand. Again we should look at how our RSs describe it. I'm going to remove "famous" from DJ Fresh. Kappa 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my..... everyone here out of my genepool. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.168.203 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention the kidnapping?

Judgement call: Should this story be included in the article? It looks like a group of regular patrons of the restaurant kidnapped the owner's daughter and held her for ransom. I don't want the article to be too sensational, but there is a connection to the restaurant... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Maybe a brief mention when there is more in the article. Carcharoth 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict but I agree with the foregoing). There have been three difficult events for the owner of Mzoli's, and I think we left them out due to sensitivity for his feelings, which is a bit of a WP:BLP concern. His son died recently, his daughter was kidnapped, and the restaurant was raided and many people arrested for public consumption of alcohol (I don't know the laws and I've never been to South Africa at all, much less Mzoli's, but apparently it's an open air market where people bring and drink their own alcohol purchased elsewhere). I would leave the information about the son out for sure. If the owner is or becomes notable in his own right, then after a few years this becomes a biographical detail. The daughter is safe and sound so it's not a terrible event, and maybe it's relevant if it actually says something about the establishment, its community, the way people came together for support, etc. The raid is the same thing. If it's just another news event then it's probably too trivial and unrelated, but if it adds to the understanding of the subject, maybe useful. Perhaps all of this turmoil is somehow connected with the business bein well known and at the crossroads of so many different worlds. Wikidemo 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that as the article grows, those things will naturally need to be included, as they are part of the story, and part of what makes Mzoli's notable. The point is not "here is a restaurant in Cape Town". The point is "here is a fascinating institution making a difference in a difficult place, one which is a positive force for change in a place where change, even post-Apartheid, has been slow." The rich tapestry of the story, including the raids, the kidnappings, are a big part of what makes this notable in the first place.--Jimbo Wales 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo makes a good point, in that things like this will naturally fall into place in the article as it expands. However, putting it in this early might open us up to potential BLP issues, with are common among smaller articles without much other substantial content. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that once the article reaches a certain size that such additions will not seem so out of place. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• His daughter was kidnapped because Mzoli Ngcawuzele has money. The kidnapping was not related to the restaurant, so it does not belong in this article. The kidnapping could go in an article by itself, but it might not survive CSD A7 (No reasonable assertion of importance/significance) since it does not really stand out as a kidnapping. Such a separate article might have WP:BLP problems as well. The best place for the kidnapping would be in an article on Mzoli Ngcawuzele. However, I cannot find much biographical information on Mzoli Ngcawuzele to develop such an article. No birth date, no early history, etc. The Mzoli Ngcawuzele article now would read he owns a restaurant, his daughter was kidnapped, his son drowned. Not much of a biography and without other balancing material, the article would not meet WP:NPOV. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

More Google hits with other names

From the AfD, there are more Google hits with the following names, compared to this one:

• Mzoli's Meats (34)
• Mzoli's Meat (138)
• Mzoli's Place (181)
• Mzoli's + Gugulethu (369)

Please double-check these are referring to the same place. Also, other name variants may exist. Carcharoth 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to move this back to Mzoli's or perhaps to Mzoli's Place. Kappa 11:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found pictures showing both Mzoli's Place and Mzoli's Meat. Given that the article covers both, I think moving this back to Mzoli's is the best option. Carcharoth 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've moved it and created a slew of redirects. Carcharoth 13:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tourism section added

Tourism section added. I found some interesting links to articles on South African cuisine. What we need soon is a local editor to correct the little inaccuracies we might be introducing. Actually, what we need is more of the history. When did it start? That is the key bit of information that is missing. Um, is anyone going back there any time soon? :-) Carcharoth 03:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are, take a camera :) Kappa 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a promise of pictures. See first section. Carcharoth 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical context

For historical context, we need one or more of the following: year it opened, age of owner, earliest recorded reference. The best I can come up with so far is that it opened in the post-apartheid era, which would be post-1994. Carcharoth 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The earliest hit for "Mzoli Ngcauzele" in Die Burger is this, from 2002. Anyone speak Afrikaans? Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this newsletter from October 2003. Like many online documents, it doesn't have a date, but the context of the other news (in particular this) makes clear this is 2003. It says "The butchery, opened early this year...", so we could say "opened in early 2003". Carcharoth 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the Afrikaans, I tried this online translation service and got this result:

"businessman believe by police assaulted. tarzan mbita. cape town. -- a businessman of nyanga has been against druktyd in a bedenklike state after he believe in its slaghuis by fifteen members of the stadspolisie assaulted is. mr. mzoli ngcauzele is according to a eyewitness, that/what not its name called will hê not, frequently kicked and she/his pate is against a wall bumped. it have allegedly come to pass toe he wanted to tussenbeide stepping after five stadspolisielede at the slaghuis ingebars have. they were behind she/his assistant to . still about ten members have short afterwards opgedaag. the stadspolisie have according to the eyewitness traanrook fired at/to omstanders in bedwang to bring. mr. market sangster, head of the stadspolisie, have gesê a member of the nyanga-polisiekantoor got a other reproduction of the events provide. "the members of the stadspolisie has the nyanga-area gepatrolleer. they/them/their have two suspects hounded. the suspects have at a shop ingehardloop and they/them/their is afterwards. the owner they used to access declined," being lazy the statement that/what sangster of the nyanga-police recieved. in a next onderonsie is a stadspolisieman luidens the statement with a ysterpyp assaulted. they have decide at/to the winkeleienaar and the man what the polisieman believe assaulted have, in hegtenis to take. "while they/them/their the owner in hegtenis try take have, have he slipped and at stairway afgeval.""

Not sure what that all means, but it doesn't seem to be to do with his current business. I'll put that it started in 2003, using the other reference. Carcharoth 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 2003 seems right. Zagalejo^^^ 22:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic and cultural context

Final thing, I think (apart from the picture promised above), that is needed to round this off, is a section on the economics and the unique role this establishment plays in the economy of the area. Someone needs to find some good sources for this, but a section on "local economy" or "economic impact" should be possible. Possibly a section on "cultural impact" as well, though this will be harder, is already covered, and might be stretching the article over too many sections. Carcharoth 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I forget, I saw a reference somewhere that mentioned how Mzoli's has led to the establishment of several ATM machines (seen in this picture), which now means that locals no longer have to walk miles to get to a bank to get their money. Mzoli's may also be an example of a microbusiness, though we need to get a source for precise economic terms like that. Carcharoth 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Did You Know? (DYK)

I'm thinking of nominating this article (on behalf of Jimbo, assuming he doesn't want to do so himself) for the Main Page section "Did You Know?" that showcases our new articles. I'm trying to think of a suitable 'hook' for it. Maybe something like:

"Did you know... that Mzoli's, a popular restaurant and nightclub, in Cape Town, South Africa, is located in the township of Gugulethu, and began as a butcher's shop operating from a garage?"

How does that sound? Carcharoth 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe you could do more to convey why it is so unique and why people would want to know. Something like: did you know that Mzoli's, a black-owned restaurant and nightclub located in the township of gugulethu, began as Development Bank of South Africa-funded butcher shop operating out of a garage and has become a gathering spot for upwardly mobile businessmen, tourists, and famous entertainers? (that's a rough sketch but I'm trying to convey why it's such an interesting place, as Jimbo points out in his comments about notability) - Wikidemo 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's too long, but I'll try and do something a bit longer that includes those points. Carcharoth 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Did you know... that Mzoli's, a popular Cape Town eatery, nightclub and tourist attraction, in the township of Gugulethu, started off as a butcher's shop operating from a garage?" I'm going to submit this and see whether it is accepted. Carcharoth 10:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! If that doesn't fire them up, how about "Did you know... that [[Mzoli's]], a popular Wikipedia article, blog subject and tourist attraction, started off as an unreferenced stub in the deletion log?"Wikidemo 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, if Wikidemo's intro doesn't get the attention of Wiki users, I don't know what else would. Except maybe "Did you know that Britney Spears is contributing to Wikipedia under the pseudonym X" (insert appropriate editor/admin instead of X) :D 89.182.15.209 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-reference?

So who wants to be bold and reference this? Ichormosquito 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all about Wikipedia. There's nothing in the LA Times article about Mzoli's besides a basic description from the first version here. We already have that. One could add some things from it to one of the Wikipedia criticism articles.--Chaser - T 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, just an interesting note, and one of the rare cases Wikipedia is ever covered in the mainstream press with any degree of understanding. Thanks for bringing it up. Wikidemo 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you guys saw it. Ichormosquito 03:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

me! Uncleosbert 19:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

This article seems to be an advertisement article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.231.226 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok... do you think Wikipedians will get their fish and chips for free there? Simplicius 19:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Animal (Wikipedians) Farm

All Wikipedians are equal. But some are more equal than others.

George Orwell wrote that about animals. It also applies to Wikipedians. So: All human institutions are vulnerable to an abuse of power, and this abuse of power will definitely show up, you just have to wait long enough.

This story proves an important point: We must move on and further develop the software, so that a rating system with checks and balances is taking care of Wikipedia integrity. We should not leave it to single human beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.188.211.65 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"All human institutions are vulnerable to an abuse of power, and this abuse of power will definitely show up, you just have to wait long enough." Indeed! Admins seem to have forgotten that the goal of Wikipedia is to build an ecyclopedia and to encourage people to participate in this. Or did I misunderstand this somewhat? That even a new stub by a meritious editor was treated in this way shows what occasional contributors will face if they dare start a new article that isn't good enough for all those Wikilawyers here, after the first few edits. Or was Jimbo treated even worse than a newb? Well, this doesn't make the matter look any better, or do you think so? One way or the other, the problem remains the same: Too much is deleted too fast, without giving users a chance or even a helping hand in improving. 89.182.15.209 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Experienced editors having more rights indicates we're a professional bunch of people. If all animals really are equal that means Africa is equal to America and the third world is equal to the first world, which is why it is so important that this article remains as long as wikipedia itself. And while your comment re software is entirely current it is also, IMHO, profoundly mistaken. We should stick with human editors and let computers help (we'd never be able to edit without them) but we don't want wikipedia edited by software programmes, SqueakBox 23:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a moot argument and not in the right place. The only alternative to human leadership is the leadership of human invention which has the same intrinsic biases. Power corrupts, we are stuck with that. This is the wrong page to be talking about that, try a philosophy website. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about "human leadership" 'per se', this is about misuse of power. Many wikipedia users and editors seem to think, how this article was treated is an example for this. So how should this not be the right place to discuss this? Would you pls explain? 89.182.15.209 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A nice barn for the animals

Frankly, I don't see the problem. The system produced the right result. It followed an unusual path to get there. If this were any other random article it would not have been deleted in the first place, but nor would we have all jumped in with such enthusiasm to quickly build a pretty good article that calls attention to a fascinating, and frankly heartwarming, story of human goodness. If that's what privilege means, let's hear it for privilege! No matter how much you try to downplay the role of a founder and leader of an organization, you cannot completely eliminate it. Jimbo's little hut of an article got knocked over and we've built a barn in its place.

It's a demonstration that the Wikimedia software and the Wikipedia model work, not that they fail, that a dozen or two editors can build such an article so quickly and uncontentiously (once we got over the question of deletion). Do you know how many decades the giant software houses spent trying to perfect collaborative software that can't even put out a decent business memo? And here we have a grassroots volunteer effort that creates a great reference work.

A final thought. As annoying as it can be if your edits are deleted, allowing anyone to challenge anything here promotes a healthy skepticism. It keeps us honest, and encourages people to continually refine and improve. I've been through three or four deletion debates on high-profile articles, and reviewed some others. Nothing about them is ever routine or normal. But they usually create a good result, a much better article if it survives. This one is the most interesting but far from the most heated or unusual. Wikidemo 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

German translation

I translated this article to german due to the article in the "Spiegel." I am not able to place an interwiki-Link on this page so I hope someone else will do this. Achim Raschka -- 89.196.4.53 05:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein 05:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thx -- 89.196.4.53 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Achim geh ma ins Cafe gucken da wird Freibier verteilt auf Grund des Spiegelartikels, ähm Freibier für Jimbo *lol*!alexander72--84.134.219.210 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: de:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's (gelöscht) --80.146.82.217 09:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha

Jimbo Wales makes an article for a non-notable resturant and now it's notable (and has press reports to back it up) because he made an article for it. --RucasHost 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you pls check the dates of the numerous sources cited in reference? Quite obviously, this article isn't based on the reports about Jimbo and the culture of delitionism here. All that the story needed were a few more days and some hard work. A glaring example that admins not always nake the decisions that are best for Wikipedia. 89.182.15.209 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not portably for a community to keep an article held just because the author is the [co-]founder of Wikipedia. For everyone the same rights. The press criticizes Wikipedia for that and I have to join that criticism.
In der deutschen Presse wird aufs heftigste darüber diskutiert, etwa http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3055669 oder wie vom Spiegel ausgegangen http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,508726,00.html. So etwas ist nicht tragbar. --ToasterOS 06:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a moot point now, inasmuch as it is a decent article, clearly notable, and sourced. Some people will always be eager to criticize Wikipedia out of jealousy, misunderstanding, or because they have a professional stake or personal enjoyment out of criticizing successful Internet sites. We can't let ourselves be swayed one way or another by this kind of coverage. We are creating a free content source for the people of the world, not for the amusement of journalists and bloggers. Wikidemo 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies dir mal die Kritik auf den Websiten durch. Da wird kritisiert dass der Artikel nur behalten wird, weil Jimbo ihn geschrieben hat, und nicht etwa weil er relevant sei. Die Kritik wird u.a. auch dargestellt als dass der Artikel gelöscht geblieben wäre, wenn ihn irgendjemand sonst geschrieben hätte. (everything stands in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_Meats&diff=prev&oldid=159502287) --ToasterOS 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Der Spiegel article, hoping it really did speculate on what was going through my head when I re-wrote the article. Alas, my head did not make Der Spiegel. It is a pretty good, balanced piece that raises a good point about Wikipedia. The mention of Jimmy Wales and the restaurant in South Africa are the "hook" to draw readers in, but the actual point it makes has to do with Wikipedia's transitioning in some people's assessment from growth mode to maintenance mode. Thanks for the link. Wikidemo 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article

I think because of newspapers coverage of this article and it's AfD, we can mention it's wikipedia article on it's own article! Hessam 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read about this in the LA Times yesterday. But maybe the mention should go on the controversy section of the Jim Wales article, instead. --WhereIsTheCite? 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think the article should mention the controversy about it... Also I'm newly registered so I can't edit this yet, but I think the words 'township tourism' should be linked. I might go off and make that page now Chabalala 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Lea Mandela statement

I removed "Nelson Mandela's sister Lea Mandela was also an investor in the venture." as this was not supported by the source. If someone can find a source, please add it back in. Carcharoth 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lame?

(restoring this after it was deleted without explanation)

Doesn't the whole debate belong on WP:LAME? [This is a serious question, please answer the question, don't just delete] Totnesmartin 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually quite tempted to see what would happen if I created an article on a restaurant popular in my city, but I don't want to go WP:POINTy. bibliomaniac15 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If the restaurant has an established history and has been written up in several articles I would see no reason why it could not have an article. There is a difference between a well known restaurant and the corner mom-and-pops diner that may happen to appear in a AAA (AA for you Brits) highway stops list. I often feel that people are a little to pompous with their notability requirements at times. It isn't like we have printing costs to worry about, so there is no reason not to include marginal articles if they could be useful to others. Basicly, I'd like to here more about what Wikipedia is than what it is not. --StuffOfInterest 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it definately belongs in lame. I looked up arguably the most notable restaurant in Sydney, and it lasted all of 17 minutes before it was speedied![[3]]203.55.210.63 11:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This page isn't for general discussion of notability criteria for restaurants - have a look at the template at the top of this page. Addhoc 11:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people are discussing whether it should be in Lame. Let's face it, it's now notable in the media for being LameTicklemygrits 12:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What's lame is that this article exists solely because Jimbo created it (for whatever - no doubt self-serving - reason that was). Absolutely hilarious and a perfect example of Wikipedia's downward spiral. --85.210.156.35 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentiment has been mentioned many times, and it's simply not borne out by the process or the content of the article. It's a good article at this point.Wikidemo 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can discuss notability of restaurants here. I don't see why not, so I'm removing the template. Policy often arises from the bottom up, not imposed from the top down. Anyway, I don't think this discussion is lame at all. A few stray comments here and there were hasty, but we have touched on a lot of important points relating to notability, article creation, the deletion process, and Jimbo's role here, not to mention learning some very interesting things about the actual establishment and its context in South Africa. If anything this is a good demonstration of how a healthy discussion can produce a good result. We might have also established some precedent for how to handle such things if they arise in the future.Wikidemo 18:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Black neighbourhood

Would anyone care to explain why it is so relevant for the article that the restaurant is located in a "black" neighbourhood? (see [4]). Melsaran (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I reverted you, I shall make an attempt. It is relevant because it gives a cultural context to the article providing the reader with a wider perspective of this venue's significance in its local community with reference to South Africa's recent history and the racial-political conflicts which have been so intrinsic to this nation. __meco 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A thank you to everyone

This article is really quite delightful now.--Jimbo Wales 06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Participating in this has been a high point for me. Wikidemo 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Decided to review the article for GA status

First of all, this is obviously not the average Wikipedia article, because it was created by Jimbo (and later expanded by others). The article is short, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a GA. Let's see how it compares against the good article criteria.

• 1. It is well written. - Pass. No problems here.
• 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak pass. I don't see anything that looks like OR, and most of it is cited to reliable sources. Some of the sources are offline newspapers which I myself cannot read just now, but that doesn't make it unverifiable. I'd like maybe another citation in the 'tourism' section though.
• 3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak pass. It's short, but adequate.
• 4. It is neutral. - Pass. No problems here.
• 5. It is stable. - Pass. The initial flurry of edits following the article's creation have died down - the only dispute now seems to be over the "black neighbourhood" part, which I think should be mentioned because it's relevant to the culture of South Africa.
• 6. It is illustrated. - Pass, there's a good photo in here.

All of this leaves me with no choice but to pass the article, and add it to the list. Good work.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1