Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coriole

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coriole[edit]

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

Neither the article itself nor the sources establish notability as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see that claim being made in the article. It it were to be made it would have to be very well referenced, more than just a quote from BarrelsandBottles (an online wine vendor) which is itself unsourced.
  • Keep - appears to be a well-known winery and organizer/sponsor of a well-known music festival. There are plenty of good sources available for article improvement out there: [1]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numerous mentions on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar suggest notability.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nUvA6tXHtYcC&pg=PA61&vq=coriole&dq=Coriole — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have you actually looked at those mentions? Over 85% of them don't actually have anything to do with Coriole and the ones that do have only brief, one line mentioned. Nothing that satisfy WP:CORP or WP:NOTABILITY requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions. AgneCheese/Wine 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've actually checked all of the so-called references provided: half are not available for viewing (you have to pay or subscribe) and the other half are passing mentions in related fields (tourism, cuisine, etc) Not a single source has any actual content, let alone notable content, which is what is at issue here.
Also, over at WikiWineProject, we believe its not the number of hits that come up on Google, GoogleNews, etc, but their quality and content. The issue here is Notability as per WP:N. As it stands, there is nothing in the article itself or in the references provided that shows notability.
  • Comment I didn't know there was such a thing as a "speedy keep". And I'm not sure that dumping a dozen general newspaper sources in a non-standard "format" into the article convinces other editors otherwise. Tomas e (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: All of the sources I looked at contained a passing mention, and nothing else. Nothing to establish notability. Weak delete because there is a possibility that someone could persuade me to change my mind. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "keep" arguments above don't hold water, as far as I can tell. Being a sponsor of a local-interest music festival doesn't make a company notable. In the "lots of sources" cited, none of them seem to profile this winery, but rather the region, with mentions of the wineries in it. Google hits don't confer notability, the quality and content of the sources do - so where are those sources? The numerous sources listed in the article barely mention this winery. There is nothing here to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral'Weak Delete Keep (changed after looking more closely at the weak referencing) (Now that the Sangiovese claim has been properly referenced, notability is established.) Pioneering Sangiovese in Australia would be a notable accomplishment but the link to a wine retailer is distinctly not reliable. If a true reliable source is found for that, I would support keeping this article. Right now the article has a litany of faux refs of trivial mentions or from advert sites. Nothing to truly establish notability. AgneCheese/Wine 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I've logged in and gone through all the subscription service refs, I have to say they are extremely weak referencing with just passing trivial mentions in articles about the region. It like an article on the city of Paris, Texas making a brief, one line passing reference to a local pizzeria. Would we honestly consider that one line passing ref an inference of notability on that local mom & pop pizzeria? Now there is still hope for notability if any reliable source can found regarding pioneering Sangiovese in Australia. So far I haven't been able to find it and, admittedly, seeing the extremely weak referencing that has turned up so far is diminishing my hope. AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The Penguin Wine Guide is not notable, so winning an award from that is just as notable as my roommates homemade wine winning an award from a national home winemaking magazine. The same with the olive competition. The competition has to be notable before winning an award from it is. While the Music Festival may have borderline notability, that doesn't confer notability to the sponsor. Each year we have some team win the Little League World Series and they almost always have some local sponsorship like Crazy Dave's Tires. Is Crazy Dave notable because he sponsored that local team that went on to win the LLWS? The 30 second wine adviser is a blog entry, of which there are numerous blogs about non-notable wineries and restaurants. I can create a blog in 10 minutes on any non-notable topic you would like but that still wouldn't merit a Wikipedia entry. So again, we're grasping at straws trying to establish notability here when the one truly notable fact-pioneering Sangiovese in Australia- doesn't seem to have any referencing support to prove it is true. AgneCheese/Wine 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, WP:GNG does require the coverage to be about something you consider notable to count - it only requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (I've learned this over time myself after often arguing that coverage was of something not important.) Second, the 30 second win adviser page is not just some random blog - if it was it wouldn't be linked to in the Google news archives. Blogs (and I don't think this is actually a blog anyway) aren't automatically out, they just generally don't count b/c they generally aren't reliable. Blogs can still be used as sources if they have earned a reputation for fact checking (same way a regular source gets to be considered reliable). Finally, here is an industry publication that says they pioneered Sangiovese in Australia: [2] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There's currently little in the article to indicate that it's worth keeping, since it is in a sorry shape and wasn't helped by one editors dumping into the article of a dozen references, none of which are typically considered WP:RS to establish notability of wineries. However, I notice that a large number of their wines have been reviewed by The Wine Advocate and some have been given high enough ratings for the winery to be somewhat internationally established (non-free content, so I can't give you the link). Tomas e (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the state of play so far. There would seem to be two possible claims to notability: the Sangiovese claim and the reviews in the WA. All the rest is clearly not notable and/or irrelevant. So while the sources and refs to these two claims are being clarified, I'm changing from Delete to Neutral. The Sangiovese claim is impressive and if it were shown to be true beyond doubt it would be enough for a Keep (IMHO). It would need more than just a ref in Winebiz.com though. (i haven't had time to investigate yet). Secondly, what to do about the WA reviews? If they can't be referenced, they don't count, no? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free sources can be used if necessary, they just should be replaced by free ones when possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done a bit of research in Google and I'm now convinced that Coriole were indeed pioneers in the introduction of Sangiovese in Australia, which is notable enough for an article as per WP:N (IMHO). I've found quite a few references, all wine-related sites which seem reliable and independent to me. The one that clinched for me though was Jancis Robinson's webpage - I think there can be no doubt about her reliability or independence, what? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, BodegasAmbite, you are the deletion proponent, you created this debate. If you have changed your mind about the article, do you want to close this deletion discussion? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A nomination can only be withdrawn when no other editors have !voted delete, which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the news articles linked to, gives more than a passing mention of Coriole, commenting on their achievements to the Australian wine community, introducing Sangiovese, etc. Dream Focus 18:27, 7 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coriole&oldid=1069661508"