Draft talk:Mastercooks of Belgium (Les Maîtres Cuisiniers de Belgique): Difference between revisions

This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project’s Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project’s tasks pages.

Orlando Davis, to save me from having to possibly check 27 references, can you point me at 3 which support a claim to notability? Preferably 3 that I can access online!
Thanks! Valereee (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still working on improving the article to make it as complete and accurate as possible, so I won’t be able to highlight just three sources right now. You’re welcome to have another reviewer take a look in the meantime, or you can wait until I’ve finished refining it. Once I’m done, I’ll let you know in case you want to take a look—unless it’s already been accepted.

Thanks for your patience, Orlando Davis (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if that’s how you prefer to work. LMK when you can point to three to save me time/work/energy. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Here are the key sources demonstrating the notability of The Mastercooks of Belgium.

If you need to translate non-English sources, here’s a simple method in Chrome:

1. Open the webpage in Chrome.
2. Click the three dots (⋮) in the upper-right corner of the browser.
3. Select “Translate” (or right-click anywhere on the page and choose “Translate to English”).
4. The page will automatically convert to English. You can switch back to the original language anytime.

Top 3 Articles

1. CCImag article on the Mastercooks’ rentrée – coverage of the association’s activities and public presence.
2. Brussels Express article on the finest chefs – highlights prominent members and mentions the award for their book.
3. Histoires Royales article on the Princesse Léa gastronomy prize – reports that the Mastercooks’ book received an award from the Princess of Belgium, reinforcing the association’s recognition in the culinary field.

Major Newspaper Coverage

The association has received coverage in national newspapers, including the following, providing independent secondary sources (the first is paywalled):

Several magazines also feature the association, further demonstrating its public profile.

Television Coverage

The Z Mastercooks TV show adds additional evidence of public recognition:

Summary

Taken together, these sources show that The Mastercooks of Belgium is a notable culinary association, with recognition in independent press, awards, and public media, satisfying Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Orlando Davis (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis, that looks like a response from artificial intelligence? Valereee (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not artificial intelligence. While I use AI to help me find sources, and I use a spellcheck, the rest I do on my own. Look, I have been polite. I’m now getting tired of you. It seems to me like you make a lot of excuses because you don’t want to work hard. In that case, pass it on to someone who does actually want to work. I think you already have a bias against me for whatever reason and to be neutral, you should pass this on to someone else. It is a slam dunk, but you don’t like me so you’re coming up with reasons not to pass it. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any opinion on you as a person, and I’m not sure why you’d think I do. I’m experienced with articles around food, so I try to come into food drafts that have been submitted and help out with assessment of sources.

Re: the three best sources from above:

• CCImag seems to be Chambers of Commerce of Wallonia. That’s probably promoting all things Belgian.
• Brussels Express, I’m not finding a masthead or other evidence of editorial oversight?
• Histoires Royales contains a bare mention of the organization. Also no evidence of editorial oversight, it looks like it’s one person’s personal project?

If those are our three best sources, I don’t think they’re supporting notability. Valereee (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look. You can fail it if you want to. I don’t feel like getting into an edit war with you. But you know it’s notable. That’s why we need human beings to make inferences. It’s obviously noteworthy. You can tell. How would acclaim from the Belgian monarchy and a T.V. show not be notable? And tremendous newspaper coverage over many decades. I did not even include everything. Is it really that hard? Orlando Davis (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not looking to fail it. I’m looking to bulletproof it so it won’t get taken to AfD. To bulletproof it, we need three sources which are reliable, independent, and represent significant coverage. That’s what I’m asking for: Which three? Valereee (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, not all articles count as a 33 percent notability. But if you have 20 articles that count as 10 percent each, well, you are way over. I dont think it has to be 3 long articles. Notability doesn’t work that way. While it has to be more than a trivial mention, an article that only has a paragraph can be significant. We have many that have several paragraphs each. And these medium-reliability articles do establish some notability. Otherwise some small time person that has 3 long articles is more notable than the MasterCooks of Belgium? Orlando Davis (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which three articles do you think put it over the top? That’s literally all I’m asking for. The three best articles of the 35+ that are in the references. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, yes, some small time person that has 3 long articles that aren’t about a single event is a notable person. And not every organization is a notable organization. We need the sources. Valereee (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about these 3?

Orlando Davis (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the third one came in, so here it is again:

https://worldchefs.org/magazine/worldchefs-magazine-issue-31/ Orlando Davis (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the La_Dernière_Heure source looks good. I can’t get to it, even on various archiving sites, but from the first few sentences it looks like it’s about the org. Is it at least a few paragraphs about the organization?

The La Libre is just about young chefs. It doesn’t discuss the organization. Not sigcov for the organization.

The Worldchefs Magazine looks like an affiliated organization. Probably not independent.

If the La Derniere article is about the org, more than a paragraph or two, that’s one of the three we need. Valereee (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the young chefs are a big part of the organization. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty much their junior MasterCooks that eventually become MasterCooks. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how about this one as a third: https://horecawebzine.com/en/the-mastercooks-of-belgium-nieuwe-topchefs/ Orlando Davis (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm…the final sentence of the first paragraph is: “And as icing on the cake, the mastercooks.app was launched by our parent company NOOR & NOOR.” It sounds like Horeca is affiliated with mastercooks. Can’t use to support notability. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry to keep pasting. But how about this magazine (pg.7):https://web.archive.org/web/20240902151320/https://www.thebrusselsmagazine.be/fichiers/373.pdf Orlando Davis (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet archive is down. But while we wait for it to be back up, @Orlando Davis, let’s discuss the assessment of a source for purposes of supporting a claim to notability. The source must include significant coverage of the subject, it must be a reliable source, it must be independent of the subject.

Generally significant coverage is understood to mean several paragraphs. Of the subject means discussing the subject itself, not quotes from a person, not lists of members of an organization, not simple reviews of a chef or restaurant’s food, not a recipe for a dish. There has to be discussion of the person, the organization, the chef, the restaurant, the dish.

Reliable sources at a minimum show evidence of editorial oversight. If we have an article about the source, that’s a good first place to look for things like ‘major daily since 1983’ or ‘paper of record’. If it’s a redlink, a masthead, a list of staff that includes people with the title of editor, even a jobs listing that includes job titles of editor can help. Their About Us sometimes gives a clue.

Independent means there’s no sign of a connection between the source and the article subject. Press releases, paid insertions, sharing a parent company, provided bios. This can require detective work.

These are things article creators need to understand in order to reduce the frustration you’re feeling now. You feel like, “I’ve found 37 sources! What is this woman looking for!” I’m looking for only THREE sources, all of which meet all of the above criteria.

When I write a draft, I first look for sources that meet these three criteria and I write from those sources. I intentionally do not use any sources that don’t meet these criteria until I have my three. Once I have those three, I’ll use anything reliable, mentions of any length, and even things that are affiliated for certain types of content. But first I prove to myself that the sources support a claim to notability. Because I work this way, if anyone ever AfD’s one of my creations, I can go back in the history and look at the first few sources I used. The support for notability will be there because those are the sources I used first to create the draft. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me a Wikipedia guideline with direct quotations to back exactly what you say as closely as possible. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned that’s your opinion. Not Wikipedia policy. It clearly says on the notability page: “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Wikipedia:Notability Orlando Davis (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t have to be the main topic of the entire source material. It has to be the main topic of discussion for some significant portion of the material.

So, say a source is about the current state of the wine industry. There are ten paragraphs about a particular winery, and three of those paragraphs are about the vintner — not just quoting her, but discussing her, like where she was raised and educated and how she got into winemaking — and the vintner is your subject: good to go. The source is about something other than that person, but it discusses her at length.

But if the source about the current state of the winery and the three paragraphs are just her giving her opinions on recent developments in the industry: not good to go. The source is not discussing her at length.

You’re free to treat all of this as my opinion. I think you’ll find that many editors share the opinion that significant coverage means discussion at length of the article subject. There are examples at WP:SIGCOV. There are also experts you can discuss with at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the way to handle it is to evaluate on a source by source basis.

Each article should debated. If you don’t want to do that. Feel free to pass. I realize that you must have other things to do with your time. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that’s what we were doing? Discussing each source? Valereee (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that. But the article isn’t about the organization, which is what we need. Valereee (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why would an award by the Belgian monarchy not be notable. Isn’t that notable? Orlando Davis (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an award itself is notable, it can support a claim to notability. See WP:ANYBIO. Some awards — highest recognition in a particular field, generally — are so notable that all by themselves they get a winner over the hump.

Typically we’ll have an article about those kinds of awards, almost always there’ll be an article in the wiki for the award’s main languages. But we don’t have Prix Littéraire Prince Alexandre or Prince Alexander Literary Prize, and neither does French Wikipedia, which doesn’t even include it in their List of literary prizes. So likely not a notable award, much less one that is so major it supports notability. Valereee (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it doesn’t have a Wikipedia doesn’t mean that it doesn’t qualify for one.

Here is an article about the award.

https://www.rtbf.be/article/un-nouveau-prix-litteraire-en-memoire-du-prince-alexandre-7781615

This one is paywalled

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/literaire-prijs-ter-ere-van-prins-alexander~ba811be7/\

Here is this article citing another article about the prize.

https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/2012/08/09/mieux-faire-connaitre-alexandre-le-prince-discret-WM3D42KFEBA6PBPIUBYECKSTUQ/

‘Finally, as we have already read in “La Libre” – see the editions of July 28 and 29 – the Prince’s widow has also decided to create an annual literary prize for both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking people.’ Orlando Davis (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, the fact there is no article yet doesn’t mean something isn’t notable. If you think the award is notable, by all means create the article. RTBF, De Morgen and La Libre are all RS. The RTBF is sigcov. I can’t get to the De Morgen, but from the headline it appears to be about the prize so very likely sigcov. The La Libre is just a bare mention, but you can probably find the backissues it’s referring to. It probably isn’t major enough to support notability, but if there’s an article, most editors will support at least mentioning the award in the article about the recipient. Although in this case we could probably mention it with a link to Princess Lia. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps at a later point. As I’m still on this article. The point is that the award does contribute to notability..

I found another source. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2012/06/05/prinselijke_weduwesteltliteraireprijsvoor-1-1322282/

And the T.V. show Z-MasterCooks also contributes to notability. Here are the articles again:

Orlando Davis (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t generally count an award toward notability unless it’s a fairly major award. The VRT is an RS, and that probably just squeaks by as sigcov. I think a lot of editors would consider that plus the RTBF and De Morgen as supporting notability for purposes of having an article about the award.

The Roularta is a press release, which we can’t use toward supporting notability. Some media which are RS for their own work also put out press releases from other organizations, but whatever is in the press release is obviously not independent. So while in a Roularta-created story what is being said about the organization would be credibly indicating notability even though it’s very short, we can’t use the organization’s own description of itself as an indication of notability.

Yow, that pdf almost gave me a seizure. Which article even is it? My French probably isn’t good enough for me to make an assessment, though. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s page 112 of the PDF. It costs money for Scribd. I used to pay.

I don’t see proof that it’s not a major award. Since, there isn’t proof that it doesn’t qualify for a Wikipedia article. Orlando Davis (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 more on Z-MasterCooks.https://weekend.levif.be/culinaire/recettes/z-mastercooks-video-la-recette-des-chefs-frederic-caedinael-le-sanglier-des-ardennes-et-koen-somers-de-kristalijn/

https://weekend.levif.be/culinaire/z-mastercooks-video-la-recette-des-chefs-dirk-wittebrood-de-watermolen-et-matthieu-beudaert-table-damis/

Can’t use it yet:

But maybe you can find a source. The French Wikipedia lists it as the 6th highest rated show on canal Z.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_Z_(Belgique_francophone) Orlando Davis (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying for a wikipedia article — which I’d say this award does — does not automatically mean it’s the kind of major award that counts toward notability.

Both of the Levif articles are bare mentions. And hm…trying to figure out what Levif was, I see that’s a publication of Roularta, which is making me wonder if there’s some affiliation here that explains the press release. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the pdf — the ad for the TV show, bare mention of the organization, is that what you are referring to? Not sigcov. Paid content, so not independent. Valereee (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the award not count towards notability? What guideline are you referring to? Orlando Davis (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at things like WP:ANYBIO and WP:CORPTRIV. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a quote that backs that the award cannot establish notability in this article? Orlando Davis (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this source is relevant: https://www.cim.be/fr/television?type=yearly_top_10_per_channel&year=2018&region=south I will give you a screen shot in a moment. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here: https://www.cim.be/fr/television?type=yearly_top_10_per_channel&year=2018&region=south

It won’t let me upload a screenshot. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it says it was number 2 in 2018 on Canal Z. Sorry for so many posts. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re wanting to use viewership of a program produced in collaboration with the organization as a support to notability of the organization? Sorry, that’s a hard no for me. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It supports that the program exists. It is The MasterCooks. Is there a quote you could provide from a guideline page that would back your statement that it cannot be used for notability? Orlando Davis (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure you are understanding what notability means here on Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not proving to me that you do. That’s why I asked. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have time, there are other sources to discuss. Do you have time? I understand if you don’t. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you’re asking me to prove it, I’ve created over 350 articles, and IIRC none have been deleted. My record at AfD is pretty good That’s probably a reasonable indication of my understanding of notability. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]