Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 19:06, 5 May 2022

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mendel Winery

Mendel Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about obscure winery in Argentina. No references, and external links are the company website, a trivial mention (only in one paragraph of a short trivial article) on a publication online that looks like it's probably one of those places that just reprints press releases submitted to it (so not an independent source) and some listing on a website trying to list all wineries: trivial and not reliable for information. Need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish any notability at all to be mentioned in any article, and needs more than that to have an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a consumer business making material goods and selling them under its own brand. The Wine Spectator is a reliable source, and their coverage of this winery includes not only the linked interviews but apparently several product reviews hidden behind a paywall. I removed the unreferenced tasting notes, which did seem spammy to me; perhaps a Wine Spectator subscriber could add references to the reviews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So if you consider Wine Spectator to be a reliable source, what are the other independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would meet the multiple sources requirements for having an article? DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. I do not consider one brief mention in the June 2006 issue of the Wine Spectator to be enough (even though the WS itself can be considered reliable and independent). The second source is an unnotable wine portal, and the third source provided in the company's own website! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a notable winery with independent and reliable sources as referred to in the article. Varbas (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Has now been blocked as sock of banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comments attacking me personally are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just alerting the closing admin to a potentially invalid !vote. They can do with that information whatever they want. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• But like I pointed out above, only one of the 3 sources (Wine Spectator) is independent and reliable! and it only contains a trivial entry in June 2006! The other two sources are not independent (winery's own website) and/or un-notable (wine portal). The article as it stands does not show notability, and neither does the source! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to meet standards for WP:ORG. Vicenarian 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The one brief mention in Wine Spectator is a very trivial mention and doesn't meet the criteria for notable referencing per WP:CORP. Even though I am a member of WP:WINE, I don't think wineries should be held to any lower standard for notability as any other business such as a local restaurant. Sure wine is awesome but even Joe's Pizza can get a trivial mention in a local paper or consumer review. Agne/ 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Wine Spectator's coverage puts it over the line for me. I assume there must be coverage in the Argentine media -- have any of our Spanish-speaking editors made an effort to locate coverage from there? Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, I have. I did a Google and Google News search and nothing comes up in reliable independent sources (apart from the trivial mention in the WS from 2006). Just brief mentions in online wines stores, tourism/travel pages, etc. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. In addition to the wine spectator, there's this: which per this: would appear to be a somewhat reliable source; and this: which is a blog but an unaffiliated one. It's marginal, but I think it's marginally over the bar rather than marginally under it.—S Marshall /_Cont 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The first link you mention () may well be independent but the content of the mini-article (2 paragraphs) is completely un-notable! The second link, as you say, is just someone's blog, and does not provide any notable content about Mendel either. It seems clear that Mendel makes boutique quality wine and that a respected wine-maker works there, but where's the notability? There are thousands of boutique wineries out there.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Two paragraphs is enough to be non-trivial coverage, I think. (The coverage doesn't have to be notable, and it's not apparent to me what "notable coverage" might mean; the notability criteria just say there has to be non-trivial discussion in a reliable source independent of the subject).—S Marshall /_Cont

• Well, I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation here. Firstly, WP:N says:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive

2 paragraphs surely cannot be considered to be 'significant coverage'. In fact, I would consider a mere two paragraphs to be utterly trivial. Give the name of a winery and I'll find you two paragraphs written about it in an independent reliable source! The Wine-Pages site has literally thousands of articles on wineries. How can 2 paragraphs possibly be 'significant coverage'? And there can be no doubt that the 2 paragraphs do not "address the subject directly in detail"

Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The coverage doesn't have to be notable". It's the winery (subject of the article) that has to be notable! If I had the time and the inclination, I could provide hundreds of similar non-notable wineries along with a few paragraphs from similar sources, and then where would be be? We have to draw the line somewhere! If someone could find something notable about this winery, we could keep it. I've followed up a lot of links from Google (both English and Spanish sites) and haven't come up with a single item of intersting or notable news.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Then let's agree to differ. :)—S Marshall /_Cont 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Bodegas is right. Over at the Wine Project, we've done a lot of soul searching in trying to evaluate notability of wineries. When it came down to it, we realized that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a wineguide and we must hold wineries to at least the same standards as local mom & pop pizza joints. Any restaurant can get local reviews and passing trivial mentions in larger publications but according to WP:N and WP:CORP those extremely local and trivial coverages are not enough for every local restaurant and pizza joint to have a[REDACTED] entry. Just because a winery makes wine, doesn't make them any different than these other local business. Agne/ 14:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If it has been profiled by both Wine Spectator and Wine Pages (which has serious wine writers contributing, rather than being a blog), I think coverage would be OK; their interest seems to be partially based on the winemaker's established track record. However, since the article is fairly devoid of content, it has fairly little encyclopedic value at current, so it's a weak keep. Tomas e (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wine Spectator coverage of a new venture, or the activities of a winery founder, doesn't confer notability of the winery. It isn't much different than The Los Angeles Times profiling a new restaurant that just opened. While Wine Spectator may occasionally profile a notable winery, not all wineries profiled in Wine Spectator are notable. I am highly skeptical of using an appearance in Wine Spectator as a litmus test for notability. The same is true for coverage in local or regional media. The content-free nature of the article is another strike against it, hence my strong recommendation to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Apologies to the article's author, but I have to agree with Amatulic. After having gone through this very process and conversations myself I can assure you it's easily confusing for any beginner. What makes a winery "notable" is not the amount of reviews it receives or how high those reviews are. The only saving grace would be having significant article coverage across multiple publications. If your winery is a cover story, or featured article of some type, for a national publication wine or otherwise, that makes it more notable. More over, this article cannot be about what to expect from the winery, but based on accomplishments the winery has already achieved. Think of Misplaced Pages like a history text book, not every solider in the civil war will get mentioned, only the most key or "notable" players. Likewise not every winery can be mentioned, only the most key or "notable" wineries in the industry.RonaldMcWendys (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (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.