Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion)

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 Keep (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion)

A minor wine estate/wine in a minor Bordeaux appellation. Basically non-notable (a Google search reveals no substantive media coverage) and apparently created by or on behalf of the estate owner simply as an advert for their product. Nickhh (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ weak keep: My personal threshold of adequate notability for inclusion in Wikipedia is Peppercorn's thorough RS Bordeaux which does not include this estate in the chapter on Lussac-Saint-Émilion where other neighbouring more major and historical producers are covered, nor can I find any worthwhile coverage in a web sweep beyond the long review lists of Wine Spectator, Guide Hachette, the many vendor sites, and a brief mention in Decanter and by Thunevin which is insufficient. But it seems an investment push is relatively recent, so I'd agree if the article be userfied until in-depth RS possibly appear. MURGH ^disc. 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that Peppercorn is a good benchmark for Bordeaux if one is going to draw a line somewhere (by contrast for example simply listing only classified growths would probably be too restrictive, and also stacked against Chateaux from appellations without a classification system). Are there any wine project standards or assumptions on this kind of thing (I'm not a member)? Given that every music album ever released and every school seem to have their own WP page, one could make a case for allowing every wine or wine estate to have one too. Having said that, as a commercial product, I guess we have to be more wary? --Nickhh (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a good point of comparison. I'm not at all adamant the Peppercorn book from 1990 should "draw the line", only so far as to say this estate is historically no giant. Looking over WP:CORP, there is a case for the Guide Hachette entries over the years (some shown here [1]) which are more thorough than the Wine Spectator score lists.. Also there is the option, as this producer shares owners with Château Franc Mayne^[2] to do some form of merge. MURGH ^disc. 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As the nominator, I'm still tending towards deletion as a minor estate, most of which do not currently have their own pages. I guess my point is that it might be worth having a more general ruling/standard for the future, which could conceivably be more generous (or which, equally, might not be). A mention under or merge to the other Chateau might be a plan. --Nickhh (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although the article is written on behalf of the owners, I'm strongly convinced that the public has the right to know the existing of this estate. The Satellite wine appellation of Saint Emilion is not as famous as other nearby areas but it does take part in wine history. The ideal situation would be that every chateau has its own article on Wikipedia, like of those well-known chateaus in Saint Emilion or Medoc areas, but not everyone is alert to this online encyclopaedia yet. One of the solutions would be that one of the chateaus starts its own article, and hopefully others would do the same today or in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RelaisfrancmayneGB (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Murgh has a convincing case on the (limited) notability of this estate in the world of Bordeaux wine; I know very well that he has his nose in the relevant source literature. However, I would like to draw the attention to the fact that the article also states that the château building is a distinctive landmark in Lussac. Perhaps that fact, and not just the notability of the wines, should be considered when the overall notability is considered? Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that may very well be, and that valid but more obscure RS isn't readily found online. MURGH ^disc. 11:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, that would need to be sourced surely, as evidence of notability. Don't forget the article seems to have been written by or on behalf of the owners, so anything in it currently - with all due respect to the author! - should be treated with caution. --Nickhh (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the image sort of convinced me that it ought to be a local landmark as stated... :-) I agree on the assumption on how the article is likely to have come about, but I'm used to such articles being more non-encyclopedic and filled with superlatives, so I just thought that this one was OK in tone by comparison to many other. Tomas e (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned it up a little, and it's apparently accurate and sufficiently notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the nature of the subject, online media coverage (especially in english) may be sparse, but that doesn't preclude sources from existing. The wines from this vineyard have been recommended widely, however, this is usually a trivial reference for example this Washington Post[3] article or the multiple mentions in the NYTimes wine section. Some have gone further, for example, the Boston Globe reviewed the winery and recommended it (not as trivial) [4]. There was also media coverage of the "Assemblage en Bordeaux" which this winery belongs to; Europe Intelligence Wire carried a number of articles from European sources in March of 03. Griet Laviale, a current owner has also made the news especially as a female vintner in a typically male dominated profession (for one english example, see [5]). So, in short, I think there's an article here and that the subject is notable enough, but I agree that this first one wasn't really a good start. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all official appellations get written about and are notable. The question raised above about how to comparably deal with less organized regions is a bigger problem. DGG (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but your statement gives the impression to be about an article concerned with the satellite appellation Lussac-Saint-Émilion and not a wine estate of recent emergence and sparse RS. I'm sorry if I've completely misunderstood.. MURGH ^disc. 19:12, 22 October 2008 (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.