Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogatell

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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogatell[edit]

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

An un-notable brand of wine. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and specifically WP:WINETOPIC. At the current state the article includes a large background section about the region and only three sentences about the brand itself, from unclear sources, and not establishing notability. Muhandes (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the vintner isn't known in the Americas, it and its cooperative are known in Spain. Original article was messy with flowery NPOV, but has been considerably cleaned up.
~~Keep~~. ~~Vintner appears to qualify with first item under Wikipedia:WINETOPIC#Valid_criteria alone for 'one of the first to use … “indigenous yeast” fermentation'.~~ --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article doesn't even say that - it says "one of the first to use natural yeast in the global market place" (my emphasis). The method can be used for centuries locally, and they are one of the first to market it in the global market. Second, this claim is totally unsourced. Third, even if the claim was sourced, it doesn't mean they pioneered a new method, just that they are one of the first (maybe they are the 10th?). Fourth, even if they pioneered it, there is nothing to show this is "significant contribution to the world of wine" rather than an advertising hook. Keep in mind the entire article suffers from massive WP:COI being written by an employee. Show with reliable sources that this technique is a significant contribution. Show similarly that the brand pioneered the method, not just jumped on a wagon, and not just were the first to market it, and I will withdraw the nomination. The article is light years from that. --Muhandes (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is also quite simply not correct. Bulk brands tends to use only cultivated yeast, so there are few low-cost volume products using indigenous yeast only. If you have only this perspective it could seem rather new. But there is a large number of biodynamic or traditionalist producers in e.g. France and Germany that don't use any cultivated yeast. These are often high-end wines. But I would contend that e.g. Nicolas Joly's wines are very much a part of the global market place. Tomas e (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-leaning to delete VERY rarely are individual wines notable enough to merit their own articles (Dom Perignon being one of the few). Typically details on a wine are included in the article on the winery, itself, which has a better chance of establishing notability and having a worthwhile article created on it. That said, if this article is kept, it should be moved to Cellar Batea with the article refashioned to be an encyclopedic entry on the co-operative rather than a WP:WINEGUIDE entry on an individual, largely non-notable wine. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cellar Batea, per Agne. I find that argument persuasive and it resolves a complaint that Wikipedia:WINETOPIC#Valid_criteria guidelines are so Americanised as to disfavour non-US vintners. Thanks for the suggestion and if it helps build consensus, I withdraw my earlier vote above. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I already voiced my opinion above, I would like to re-emphasize that the issues of notability are just as strong in case of this being moved to Cellar Batea. Namely, Cellar Batea does not pass WP:GNG as well. One would first need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of these are currently shown in the article. --Muhandes (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move. Definitely non-notable as an article on a single wine (which very, very rarely qualify), could possibly be salvaged as a winery article. Tomas e (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2011 (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.