Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Manitoba

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. Consensus here is to keep but with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Manitoba[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." This applies because the article is a simple listing with no context. KAP03 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 because it covers loosely related topics (namely breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Manitoba which are unrelated). The article also fails WP:CSC because not every entry meets the notability criteria or every entry on the fails the notability criteria. The list is also not a complete list of every item that is a member of this group. The list also fails WP:LISTNAME because list is too broad. KAP03^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator continues to improve in wording his deletion arguments since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online real estate databases -- an area in which he now seems to be focused: deleting lists. Sometimes with good cause. But my response here remains much the same as online real estate databases: this is not without context information. The context here is perfectly clear, even to the point of supplying us with cities where the companies are based and the type of drink produced. This doesn't exactly mirror an existing category, far as I know, in that it groups makers of wine, beer and spirit together, but WP:CLN -- which the nominator has hopefully acquainted himself with by now -- still applies, I think. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect the nom is a newbie here and has been advised to look for other avenues to sharpen their editing skills. Deletion nominations can cause havoc with editor retention, and bad nominations are a waste of the community's time. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep the nom should refrain from bringing any more lists to AfD for the time being. Lepricavark (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. There may be stronger reasons for deleting this, such as perhaps the question of whether we need lists that combine three distinct and only tangentially related types of facility into one common list, but this deletion rationale ain't cutting it: lists are not automatically deemed to run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY just because they happen to be lists. No prejudice against renomination if somebody feels strongly enough about it to formulate a compelling deletion rationale, but what's been offered here is not the reason why this might conceivably be deletable. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales of Shawn in Montreal and Bearcat herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 3 January 2017 (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.