Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine

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 no consensus. Batch AfDs only really work if each article has similar merits. In this debate, there were some advocating one article be kept, or one article deleted. There were weak keeps, but there were also numerous keeps with sound rationale. In respect to Agne's request, I'm not willing to have my judgement enforcing what would be, in effect, a consensus to delete by editors who haven't read every article. Either there is consensus to delete each article, or there isn't; I cannot just say that the result was delete those which are deemed by the closer to be unfit. In that respect, I would have to say that a 30 second non consensus closure is, unfortunately, the only way the policies allow this debate to end, given this murky discussion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries and vineyards in Maine[edit]

List of wineries and vineyards in Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A seemingly useless article that does not serve any encyclopedic purpose as detailed by WP:LIST. This article is essentially a list of red link for wineries of questionable notability that would have difficulties passing WP:CORP. The very limited number of wineries that would merit an encyclopedia article would be better served with a category and inclusion in the Maine wine article. As this article stands it is essentially one big link farm of these wineries websites that is more WP:ADVERT than anything that would benefit the reader. The basic question here is if Wikipedia is not a WP:ADVERT wineguide or business directory, what is the point of keeping these lists consisting mainly of links to the websites of non-notable businesses?AgneCheese/Wine 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles: The above rational also applies to the following articles which should be considered in this deletion.
List of wineries in Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of wineries in Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Utah breweries, wineries, and distilleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of wineries in Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of wineries in the Barossa Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of wineries in the Eden Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Niagara Peninsula wineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At this time, I've declined to add two other "list of" articles to this AfD (List of wineries in Missouri and List of Oregon wineries and vineyards) because they appear to conform more to guideline laid out in WP:LIST. However, there is still concern about their overall encyclopedic purpose and the extensive external links to commercial websites. As a member of WP:WINE, having additional input from the community on the appropriateness of these articles would be very worthwhile. AgneCheese/Wine 04:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the lot. There's definitely a WP:CORP issue here, as evidenced by the proliferation of red text. You're left wondering if it's some kind of business directory. Adorned as they are with external links, I don't see how they're any more than linkfarms. Good call. mikaultalk 05:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. of the 2 lists not nominated, they clearly can stay as there are wineries of note on the lists, but the redlinks have got to go. and i checked the maine lists "oldest vineyard", and its not old enough (10 yrs) to be notable in it own right. oldest winery date is given, also not notable, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note After these two comments, 4 more winery articles were added to the AfD. I apologize for the delay but I just recently stumbled upon them. AgneCheese/Wine 06:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to hear what folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine think, as the concept of the article seems potentially worthwhile to me, and the template on the article seems to be encouraging the creation of these articles. Only wineries that are independently notable should have their own articles, but that doesn't mean having a list of those wineries by state should be forbidden. Wikipedia didn't used to be so anti-redlink, of course the links can be removed.--Milowent (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Mikaul above and myself are members of WP:WINE. I'm sure a few other wine project members will chime in with their opinions as well. The topic of "List of..." articles is one that the project hasn't fully tackled yet, though a few of us disagreed with the "no consensus/default to keep" decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vineyards and wineries (2nd nomination). AgneCheese/Wine 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After having read WP:LIST I must say that it is not clear to me what the criteria for a list is! Why are Willowtip Records discography or List of Project Runway contestants (both featured) and both having lots of none wikilinked and therefore probably not notable items on the list acceptable. (Not trying to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF just trying to undertsand what the criteria is and since they are both featured I assume that they are acceptable). While List of wineries in the Barossa Valley is not? The former are a much better article, sure. But that any of the wine lists are finnished is not a reason to delete just to WP:SOFIXIT, the reason must be that the list as such is not notable, or 'does not serve any encyclopedic purpose' or something. I do not understand why a list of wineries in barossa is any less notable than a list of project runway contestans or a list of records from a recording company. Can anyone point to a place that defines 'notability' for a list? Or a place that defines the criteria for deletion/keep of a list, or explain in more specific terms than 'does not serve any encyclopedic purpose ' since WP:STAND and WP:LIST does not really make this clear to me. Does "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." from WP:LIST really mean that all items on a list must be notable for a lits to be notable?? And if so why is Willowtip Records discography or List of Project Runway contestants featured, are we saying that we have feature lists that should be deleted?? I'm confused :-) --Stefan talk 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since my interest and attention here deals mostly with wine content, I'm probably not going to give the best rational for why list articles on Willowtip Records and Project Runway exist. But looking at those articles compared to these winery list articles, a few things do jump out. For one, there is a substantial amount of referenced content in both of the featured lists as well as an established claim of notability (at least according to community consensus) for each entry on the lists. There is also a finite number of entries for each article and, compared to the wine articles, there is not as much overt commercial link farming and directory styling. Per guidelines such as WP:CORP, a winery is not notable simply because it is a winery. Like a pizza shop, neighborhood deli, etc, it has to establish its notability beyond just simply existing. The contestants of Project Runaway are (apparently) notable because they did something beyond just existing-they appeared on a television show. The same claim of notability can not be made for every single Barossa Valley winery. So if Wikipedia is not a WP:ADVERT wineguide or business directory, what is the point of keeping these lists consisting mainly of links to the websites of non-notable businesses? AgneCheese/Wine 14:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. First link farms in this context does not mean delete, just remove the links.
      2. Many of the list items on the lists I quoted are NOT notable, to be a contestant in Project runway only does not make you notable, so my point was that some of the list items are notable but not all, just as for wineries in e.g. Barossa.
      3. Again, just because a article is bad does NOT mean that it should be delete, it should be FIXED.
      4. Why is wineris in barossa less finite than the number of records a record company have made? See e.g. List of bicycle manufacturing companies as a example in WP:STAND if that is notable then I see no reason why wineries should not be.
      5. So the question is what makes a LIST notable? --Stefan talk 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While my personal opinion is that contestants of Project Runway are not notable, that apparently doesn't reflect community consensus. You're arguments are essentially WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or you are working from the flawed premise that wineries are inherently notable just simply because they are wineries. If that is the case then WP:CORP will need to be rewritten to include this de facto notability. Your WP:SOFIXIT claim is flawed because the only way to fix these articles from not being WP:ADVERT, WP:WINEGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY link farms is to essentially delete everything in the article. Look at articles like List of wineries in Ohio which is a list of wineries websites and coordinates that would not pass WP:CORP. If you remove every redlink and WP:SPAM webpage links, all you have is a bunch of coordinates on the page. Now we could do the reverse and make it MORE of a business directory by adding phone number, tour availibility and tasting room hours. Would that really be fixing it? AgneCheese/Wine 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not argue OTHERSTUFF, I started to ask what the difference was, I was NOT arguing OTHERSTUFF, just questioning what the policy was, you then stated differences, among one that that ALL items was notable, I do not think that is the case. I agree that IF all items in a list needs to be notable my vote would be Delete, but I can not find that stated or see it by consensus since there are FA lists with what I think is non-notable items, therefore I vote Keep. That is not a OTHERSTUFF exists vote, it is a unclear policy is interpreted by consensus this way, vote. Please help me understand out policies, since I see nothing that differs from List of Project Runway contestants and any of these lists that SOFIXIT can not fix. --Stefan talk 10:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we now have proof that many of these articles are not salvageable and can't be WP:SOFIXIT. Take a look at the edit history of List of wineries in the Barossa Valley and its talk page. I tried in good faith to clean the article up of its glaring issues but was reverted by two editors who wish to keep it in its sorry shape--even with its clear WP:POV, WP:ADVERT section of "iconic wines"! AgneCheese/Wine 05:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of wineries in Quebec. I had promised to work on improving the list by creating articles on the most known wineries we have here. I started working on the general subject by creating Quebec wine, but went on to do other stuff after that. I promise to get back to it now. :-) I should be able to write stubs on four or five of our most internationality successful wine makers in a relatively short amount of time. I can also remove the red links on the others of course. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm somewhat divided on this one, and since we're sort of trying to establish some sort of WP:WINE policy, I will explain my thinking in some detail. I think it's fairly clear that the majority of the wineries listed in these lists are not notable enough for stand-alone articles. To me, that in itself isn't a completely sufficient reason to delete these lists, but it does seem to rule out two out of three main purposes of lists under WP:LIST: "navigation" and "development". From this point of view, redlinks to non-notable wineries are not really helpful to have, and external links to them is definitely a WP:LINKFARM which should be removed on sight according to WP:EL. 5 out of 7 nominated lists have this type of content:
    • Redlinks to non-notable wineries: Ohio, Utah, Quebec, Maine, Illinois
    • External links to non-notable wineries: Ohio, Maine, Illinois

However, we still have the third purpose of a list - "information". And in principle, I could see that a list of items not notable enough for one stand-alone articles per item still could provide information. So what do the lists contain in terms of information, other than the winery's name?

    • Location (town/village): 6 out of 7 (Ohio, Utah, Quebec, Niagara Peninsula, Maine, Illinois)
    • Exact coordinates: 1 out of 7 (Ohio)
    • Flagship wine: 1 out of 7 (Barossa Valley)
    • Date established: 1 out of 7 (Maine)
    • Additional notes: 1 out of 7 (Maine - "oldest winery" and "oldest vineyard")

Probably, it's not worth having a list with just winery name+location ("Wikipedia is not a phone directory" or whatever). However, I see some marginal merit in the information in the Maine list, and maybe, maybe the Barossa Valley list (altough a list of "flagship wines" may be bordering on material discouraged by WP:WINEGUIDE). However, the current information on oldest... in the Main list looks like it could be merged to the Maine wine article.

For any list we also have the issue of inclusion criteria that are both clear and encyclopedic, verifiability of list entries against these criteria, and what the length of the resulting list will be. (That's why I think that the List of vineyards and wineries is a far more horrible creation than any of the lists nominated here.) I suppose that listing "all wineries in Maine" is possible, but drawing up a complete List of wineries in California suddenly seems like a much more impossible idea, and if the same concept can't be applied to all US states, doing a list by state suddenly seems less attractive.

So, which type of inclusion criteria would make for a "sensible" list of wineries per some geographical unit (country, region...) from my point of view, since I'm not totally against such lists if they provide some amount of encyclopedic information? Well, I would say at least criteria:

  1. based on official classifications (such as the list in Classification of Saint-Émilion wine; I could in principle also imagine listing vineyard owners in all Burgundy Grand Cru articles),
  2. membership in an organization which is clearly selective in its membership (such as the list in Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter), or
  3. based on size (vineyard size, volume of sales) with a significantly high "cutoff" (such as a "List of major California wineries", listing all with more than X acres of vineyards or Y (million) dollars of sales and ending up with a hundred or so).

...but not "all" as the only inclusion criteria. So I don't see these lists being informative enough, and end up with (weak) delete. Tomas e (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good points, I agree to most but remeber that a list does not have e.g. date establised in it now, is not a reason for deletion, that is just a reason to FIXIT, the reason for delation should be notability, however that is defined for a list. --Stefan talk 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand, you can not delete just because of lack of references, are you seriously saying that you do not think that most entries in the lists does not have a reference, a ref for a list should just be a reference that states that they exists, not one that establishes notability. --Stefan talk 00:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above... when building the Maine list, I used a ref for each entry to prove not only that they existed, but also that they were actively vinting wine. Without a ref for each winery, how can you prove that it even exists? Per WP:V, a ref is required for anything that could be questioned, I do not think that the ref used for each entry necessarily needs to prove notability (or even pass WP:RS), just something (even that winery's own website) that says the winery exists, and is active... I don't think that's asking too much to verify that each entry is a real company... and my delete !vote was a "weak delete" because I would quickly strike it if a ref was given for each entry (and those without a ref were removed)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Warrah (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all. The correct question to ask (seems this AfD seems to be about a meta issue primarily, not the individual lists) is: "Is the subject 'Wineries of X' notable in general?" I think the answer is yes and I will explain why. If we had a theoretical article "list of wineries" it would surely pass notability as there are a large number of reliable sources that list & discuss hundreds of different wineries. However, such a list is not remotely feasible. The most logical way to break that list down is by region, as this is exactly the same system winery guides normally use. I am sure one can find news paper articles, magazine articles, and even entire books dedicated to the wineries in a specific region. Thus clearly some regions are notable enough for a listing of their wineries. Now, obviously there is an appropriate level to stop breaking down the list further, but this discussion isn't about the merits of the individual lists, but rather a discussion about the existence of these lists at all, so I !voting keep based on the validity of the concept, not the contents of each individual list.

    Now, there are a couple related questions here. 1) How does one determine inclusion into list X? 2) Do the lists serve any purpose? The first question is a matter of editorial discretion and is not relevant to the AfD. The answer to the second question is yes, certainly. While usefulness doesn't determine inclusion, those arguing the lists are useless are flat out wrong. Some readers may be very much interested in learning about every winery in a given region. Others may like one manufacture and want to learn about others. More importantly though, the "list of" article can also serve as a combination article where relevant information about not individual notable wineries can be stored. 90% of wineries in Ohio may be non-notable, but that doesn't mean that the wineries of Ohio as a whole are irrelevant and that we should have absolutely no information about them on Wikipedia.

    Thus the lists of "wineries of x" are both worthy of inclusion and serve a valid purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially your rational is that Wikipedia IS essentially a business directory? Since the only thing that makes these lists "useful", such as what would make List of pizza shops in New York City useful, is that a reader may be interesting in seeing the names of every single winery in a region or pizza shop in New York City. If this is the case, then the precedent for this AfD may be cause to remove WP:NOTDIRECTORY from the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not 07:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. I specifically said being useful is NOT the reason they should be included. I was merely contesting the point that they aren't useful. The reason for inclusion is that RS do organize wineries in the same fashion, specifically because the region a winery is from is part of its "character" which is not necessarily the case for other businesses. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree with the claim that "editorial discretion" is the way to "determine inclusion into list X". This is definitely not in accordance with Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NOT. Actually, the list of all wineries of the world would have hundreds of thousands of entries; the number is Bordeaux alone is close to 10,000! Tomas e (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying how the theoretical mega-list of all wineries is broken down into smaller lists is up to editorial discretion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So who decides where we draw the line on inclusion? We need to decide whether inclusion needs a red link (notable, needs article) or not (non-notable). If this is a good rationale, why is the line drawn at vineyards? Why not lists of vintners by region? Why not the several million wines available? Where are the boundaries here? mikaultalk 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where we draw the line on other subjects really is not relevant to this AfD, but since you asked I see no reason why those things can't be included as part of a larger article ("list" or otherwise) as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-outdent<- It's entirely relevant, for wine it's almost the whole point; the question was rhetorical. These articles list wineries that are about as notable as their wines and their winemakers. Please read WP:WINEGUIDE. Like restaurants, wine is a subject with very specific inclusion criteria. As the above-linked essay points out, wine notability is extremely prone to POV and OR, so we need to be especially careful with inclusion and sources, as well as wines/wineries, need to be very high-profile. 98% of those redlinked wineries (and their wines etc) are nowhere near notable enough for an article, so they will always be either navigationally or developmentally pointless in a list. Informative? Only if the list is complete and accurate – so should we get hold of a Yellow Pages and copy it out here..? Do we check it every year to delete the ones that have failed (a very real issue) and add the newcomers? I really don't think so. That's why we have directories, and why WP is WP:NOT one. So let's say we're left with the blue links, which are scarce enough that they barely warrant WP:EMBEDding into an article. Basically, these fail to be even remotely viable lists, by any criteria, long before you get into individual wines. Back to eateries: take a look at List of Restaurants in the United States. That, I'd suggest, is much closer to the sort of level and scope we should be aiming at for vineyards. State level, taking in every mom & pop operation going (and they often are about as notable as that) is just way too broad. mikaultalk 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a place for content about ones that are not notable enough for an article. This is the place. The ref for a list like this does not have to establish notability--if it did, there should be an article in addition. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ThaddeusB and DGG, these are notable lists, were not all items in the respective list are notable. That they are not referenced, have external links and can have more useful info like size, date, location .... can and should be fixed. --Stefan talk 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's cold up there and there are lots of mosquitos. Can you make wine from blueberries? What is wrong with lists of notable wineries by state? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • Delete All as the source of these lists is not provided, and they don't support an notable overarching topic. A better title for these ad hoc lists would be List of an indiscriminate selection wineries and vineyards by state, region or other arbitrary category, and without a source to attest for its completeness or accuracy, they are little more than original research. Otherwise I concur with the nomination and would recomend deletion on the grounds that these lists are little more than linkfarms for winery websites. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete All or Modify inclusion requirements for the list. Without the requirements, any mom-or-pop operation could be listed here (including those people that claim to make their own wine a few bottles at a time). If these are to stay, the inclusion factor for these needs something of a third-party source that discusses the winery beyond acknowledging its existence - which I am sure does exist for some. If that requirement is not enforced, then these lists are indiscriminate and not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on the Illinois and Ohio lists as they are linkfarms without any notable winery included. Keep the Barossa Valley list as its been fixed to our standards. Leaning delete on the rest per Gavin Collins and Tomas e. ThemFromSpace 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    changed to delete per Agne's analysis below. ThemFromSpace 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I read here, the more these look like candidates for categories, not lists, so that only those with articles (ie notable enough) get included. mikaultalk 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason why those that are blue links and notable cannot be added to a category, but that does not preclude a list that would list those and other winery that have mention but are not fully notable (*) in appropriate region lists (whether that's state, country or some other region...) (*) When I say "not fully notable" I'm talking about where there are some sources, third-party but likely not secondary, and more than just trivial/standard coverage such as in a winery directory; in these cases those wineries should be part of this list, but likely will not have an article, but can be sourced to the third-party source. This would be, for example, how List of internet phenomena is made out, where there's a bare requirement to show relevance in 3rd party sources but only those with more details are broken out to their own articles. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of sources, people just don't like to work on business articles much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Which sources in any of the articles establish WP:CORP notability and make these articles anything more than a business directory in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? AgneCheese/Wine 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)*Comment the above comment about Utah breweries is just ill-informed. Five Utah brewers can be found on the 2008 Great American Beer Festival results list of winners: Squatters, Desert Edge, Wasatch Brew Pub, Redrock, and the Utah Brewers Co-op. Probably all of these lists should go, but there's no reason to single out Utah.[reply]
  • Keep for all - Many of the wineries contained in these lists are notable it's just that no-one has bothered to create articles for them. Anyhow this is besides the point. The main thing, as noted by others, is that the lists themselves are notable. Hazir (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Over the last few days, I've done some extensive research on the wineries in the 8 lists and easily 94% of do not have sufficient third party WP:RS to pass WP:CORP. These red links clearly don't exist for navigational or developmental purposes as per WP:LIST. AgneCheese/Wine 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find these lists useful. Hopefully with time, they will be improved (with additional info and references) and articles will be created for some of the individual wineries. I'm not sure what the big hurry is to delete. It's not as though these pages are garnering loads of spam. And 93.4% of what I say is true. Hazir (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the 6.6% of what isn't true is very easy to pick up. Several of these lists consistent of nothing but WP:SPAM links to the commercial winery websites. What is the point of Wikipedia keeping Link farms WP:DIRECTORY? What encyclopedic purpose does that serve? We don't maintain pages for List of unsigned bands in California with links to their Myspace pages. AgneCheese/Wine 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except the Utah article - I can't imagine that an LDS-dominated state would have more that one notable brewery or winery. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the above comment about Utah breweries is just ill-informed. Five Utah brewers can be found on the 2008 Great American Beer Festival results list of winners: Squatters, Desert Edge, Wasatch Brew Pub, Redrock, and the Utah Brewers Co-op. Probably all of these lists should go, but there's no reason to single out Utah.
  • Keep all as per ThaddeusB, DGG and Hazir. They do follow the guidelines set out in WP:LIST. They are a valuable information source as they group the wineries by region. The lists are notable, even though some of the individual wineries contained within them may not be. They are useful to Wikipedia readers and there's no evidence that they've been inundated with commercial spammers. As suggested by Stefan, it might be useful to add some additional info such as date established, etc. Ozwinebuff (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin: I never really expected an en masse "delete" decision for all 8 articles. I decided to put the whole lot up for AfD because I knew no matter which individual list article I could put up, someone would point to the other articles and their sorry shape as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS defense. In talking with other WP:WINE members, the hope is that the closing admin will look at the individual articles and delete the ones that are the more glaring violations of WP:LIST and WP:DIRECTORY while providing some rational for how the remaining articles are salvageable according to Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately the majority of the "Keep" comments so far has made little rational defense for how any individual article falls in line with current policies and guidelines and no one has made a policy based defense for keeping the entire lot. As for a rationale for deleting the whole lot-they all fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LIST to some extent but, admittedly, to different degrees of severity. The only discouraging outcome is a 30 second "no consensus" type closing. Whatever the outcome is, as long as there is some tangible policy based rationale giving by the admin for the salvageable articles then WP:WINE will be able to improve the creation and management of these types of articles on Wikipedia in the future. Appreciate your time. AgneCheese/Wine 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you didn't want a referendum on these types of lists as a whole, then you shouldn't have mass AfD'ed them. Nothing else ever comes of a mass AfD (and almost all close as no consensus as a result). Furthermore, it seems that you yourself believed some can be saved, in which case you shouldn't have nominated them to begin with. If you can't even be bothered to judge them individually, why do you expect others to? Finally, AfDs are not supposed to be decided by the "current state" of the article, but rather its potential. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it is not the closing admin's job to judge the articles - it is his/her job to judge the consensus on those articles. It would be inappropriate for the closing admin to independently evaluate the various list articles and decide some should stay and some should go. If individual ones have consensus here, the admin can decide based on that, but you are asking the admin to decide which are within policy and which aren't. That is not the admin's job. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe all of these article serve no encyclopedic benefit, hence the reason for the AfD. The gray area you're interpreting in my words is the concession that other people may think differently then I do. Even after I worked to WP:SOFIXIT or "save" List of wineries in the Barossa Valley by removing the WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT drapings, I really don't see the benefit this article offers to the reader that a Category:Barossa Valley wineries wouldn't offer. And it is the closing admin's job to evaluate the weight of each side based on Wikipedia policy. A keep/delete contention given without policy based rationale is to be discounted. That is why this is a discussion and not votes. If it was votes, it would be as easy as adding up the yays vs nays and seeing which side wins. In reality, we know there is judgement on the closing admin's part based on the discussion. My note is mostly a request that the admin leave a rationale on why some articles were kept instead of a quick "30 second no-consensus" type close. AgneCheese/Wine 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to note to closing admin I agree with what I think is agnes main point, lets use policies to close this, the problem is that even though I !vote keep I do not really know what the police states. IMHO for AFD of a WP:LIST WP:CORP does not apply (quote from WP:CORP This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article.), it applies for a article about a corporation, not a list of them, WP:ADVERT does not apply for AFD since it can be FIXED, same for link farms. Therefore my missunderstood OTHERSTUFF above, I used it to try to get a answer to how a list is notable and I'm trying to understand the difference between a first round kicked out project runway contestand and a winery in barossa, this discussion so far have not been able to convince me what the difference is, therefore I interpret the policies that lists of e.g. wineries in barossa is valid for articles. WP:LIST should be improved to clarify this, I agree that there is a conflict between WP:NOTDIRECTORY 6 and WP:LIST but am not sure which is applicable in this case. Maybe this needs to be discussed in a more general place. --Stefan talk 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP application is very significant since two of the three main purposes of lists according to WP:LIST is to serve as Navigational and Developmental tools. This presumes that the subjects in the lists are notable enough to merit articles. If the subjects are distinctly not notable enough to pass WP:CORP (as is the case with the vast, vast majority of the wineries in these lists), then they will never fulfill any navigational or developmental purposes. The gray areas is how these lists fulfill purpose #3-Informational. My contention is that if a lists doesn't full 2 out of the 3 purposes, then that last purpose it fulfills must be of substantial value-meaning these lists should offer substantial amount of information that would be of value of the reader. Community consensus has already determined that business WP:DIRECTORY do not offer enough value to merit a place in Wikipedia. The bigger question is, would a list consisting mostly of non-notable red link wineries ever offer enough informational value to not be a WP:DIRECTORY since it will never fulfill the other 2 main purposes of a WP:LIST? AgneCheese/Wine 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with Agne, who appears to specialize in this field. Everyone arguing to keep these isn't arguing the merits of the lists now, but will assume that they will magically fix themselves, even though Agne hasn't been able to find substantive content for most of these articles. He also raises a good point about the usefulness of lists such as these: if none of the subjects are notable how useful is a collection of them, especially when we can't inform our readers of anything about them other than (at best) their existence? As a reputable encyclopedia we can't keep articles around that violate multiple guidelines and policies (notability, spamming, verifiability, etc). Even if such a list is theoretically acceptable, if none of the content within it meets our guidelines it shouldn't be presented as an encyclopedic article. ThemFromSpace 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict, comment to Agne OK good we have a clear and good argument, do we think these lists are a "a valuable information source" and that they are "grouped by theme", I think so, you do not. And even if they are, can WP:LIST (style guide) override WP:DIRECTORY 6) (policy). If your argument holds, many lists, including these should be deleted. The 2 FA lists examples above should be. (I will leave it at that, since to go any further I have to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF and I do not want to do that. :-) ) --Stefan talk 02:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be informative if there's nothing to say about them. What use is an incomplete list of names without links? In the FL examples you provided, there is substantial value in the sense of being complete, finite lists of names which are notable due to their association with the other (notable) names. That's it. It doesn't apply to vineyards. mikaultalk 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And e.g. icon wine or whatever it was, that agne removed from the barossa list, is not adding value? Other articles we do not delete since they are incomplete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE and neither are its lists, we delete since they are not notable. Or are you saying that a list of wineries can never have substantial value and therefore should be deleted by default? I beg to differ, add altitude, size, year of establishment, owner and they will have substantial value. I agree that they do not have it now, I agree there is a difference with the FL runway list, what I am trying to establish is why there is no way these lists can be like the runway contestants list??? THAT should be the argument for deletion, not the current state of these lists. --Stefan talk 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, a list of "iconic wines" is extremely WP:POV and WP:ADVERT. Iconic? According to who? Certainly not any WP:RS to give such a bias, subjective assessment. It was just a listing of wines made by each winery that was more appropriate for a sales brochure or WP:WINEGUIDE rather than an encyclopedia article. I love wine but I do not believe that Wikipedia should be an advertising vessel for wineries. Content like that offers no value to the reader or Wikipedia. But of the other stuff? For notable wineries, this info would certainly be in their articles with each listed in a category. That's easy but what about non-notable wineries? That is the question. Does a listing of non-notable wineries serve any benefit to the reader? I say no. I think there is the same lack of benefit and value as having a List of unsigned rock bands in California. You can find sources proving these bands exist and they even have official websites/MySpace pages to link to. But are they really worth being listed in Wikipedia? AgneCheese/Wine 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agne27, I think you need to desist. Your recent edits to the Barossa article have devalued it and made it less likely that people will bother to contribute to it. The slippery slope argument about unsigned rock bands in California is getting tiresome. There is no evidence to suggest that these (IMHO) useful winery lists have been magnets for spammers. Hazir (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an excellent example of how the WP:SOFIXIT mantra apparently will not work with these articles. I took the list that seemed most salvageable (List of wineries in the Barossa Valley) and removed its extremely WP:POV, highly subjective and WP:ADVERT oriented "iconic" wines listing. This served absolutely no purpose other than to advertizing wines made by the winery. I then paired down the list to the wineries that are confirmed as notable and passing WP:CORP. This changed the article from being WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable wineries into something that now serves all three purposes according to WP:LIST. I also added a WP:RS reference about the number of wineries in the valley. Unfortunately, two editors (in a blanket reversion) deemed that the article should be kept in this POV, advert, unreferenced, directory-oriented style. So to the editors espousing "keep" and WP:SOFIXIT. How do you fix an article so glaringly against policies when editors want to keep it in its original sorry shape? AgneCheese/Wine 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EC This is out of control now and this edit that I was about to make will probably not make any good, Agne I am always respect your work on wikipedia a lot, but in this case we disagree, I just wanted to point out that this ref on Cult wines maybe not RS and Third party but a decent source I would think? and that information will very likely have been quoted by some RS, so sources can be found, even if I agree partially that that column should not be in that list; and what about add altitude, size, year of establishment, owner. Would that still make the list no value? You removed parts of what made the list more than only a navigational tool. That WP:SOFIXIT did not work since someone else was disruptive, does not mean that this article show be deleted, again we do not delete because of what is on the page, we do it because of what can or should be on the page. --Stefan talk 08:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "iconic wines" and "flagship wines" are loaded WP:POV and WP:ADVERT terminology better suited for sales brochures or WP:WINEGUIDEs rather than an encyclopedia article. The link you reference is a retailer who has a vested interested in selling these "iconic wines". Wikipedia doesn't have the same interest in selling wine so we shouldn't be including such advertizing language in our articles. I think the example of the Barossa list shows how difficult to near impossible WP:SOFIXIT is with articles that are in incredibly poor shape and are already encyclopedically questionable. If the outcome of this AfD is to "keep" Barossa and bring it up to standards, how in the world are we to do that when some editors are hell bent to keep it in the same sorry state that warranted the AfD in the first place? AgneCheese/Wine 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All The vast majority of wineries in any region are going to be non-notable, these lists are really only directories, and there isn't a lot of encyclopedic value to have a list containing them all. We don't (and shouldn't) have a list of Bakeries in Seattle, or Fast Food restaurants in Boston for the same reason - a winery needs to do something more than exist to be notable enough to belong on a wikipedia list. I don't have a problem with red links on a list - they need to be to articles that ought to exist - just no one has written them yet. For the vast majority of wineries on this list, they simply aren't any more notable than the a local artisan bread maker. The Bethling(Talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I am of the belief that these lists need to be kept on Wikipedia. For example, one could argue that Barossa Valley is the centre of the wine industry in Australia, so it would be important to keep List of wineries in the Barossa Valley. There are several wineries on the list that are worthy of having an article on Wikipedia, and I plan to write some of them, starting with Seppeltsfield. The same can be said for all of the other articles as well. Each list highlights several of the major wine producers in each region, and thus bears keeping. Rrwhine (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the article on the Seppeltsfield Winery in Barossa Valley. I will work on others as time permits. Rrwhine (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - This just goes to show that quality articles can be written for many of these wineries, it just takes effort. I am of the belief that the winery lists encourage contributions such as Rrwhine's. They should be improved upon e.g. [as Stefan has done] rather than deleted. Hazir (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice work, but it only goes to show that quality articles can be written for a few wineries. All a list of red links will encourage is WP:CORP violation and spam. It will serve no navigational purpose and actually hinder development, as it's far from clear which ones are notable and worthy of creation and which are pure cruft. The vast majority will be the latter, I'm afraid, regardless of the notability of the region. mikaultalk 10:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. No one ever said that none of the wineries in any of the lists were not notable. Only that the vast majority are. We still have the same dilemma of whether or not Wikipedia should be a WP:DIRECTORY of mostly non-notable wineries. AgneCheese/Wine 12:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or No To Winery Lists? - what do you think?[edit]

So, the question to me is whether wineries are a type of item where we think its appropriate to maintain lists (typically by region I would expect), or the type of list we think isn't appropriate, like List of pizza places in New York City or List of petrol stations in Wales. To me, the cultural significance of wine and as a hobby or passion of many suggests winery lists are notable and appropriate for wikipedia. It would be nice if an essay developed out of this AfD to provide guidance on winery lists. (E.g., don't include redlinks for every winery, do include link to individually notable wineries that have individual pages, try to make list manageable in length -- all wineries in U.S. or France would not be usuable in one list). Alternatively if consensus is that such lists shouldn't exist, that guidance should go into WP:WINEGUIDE, an essay which currently suggests these lists should probably not exist, but the talk page suggests may not be a consensus view, hence where we are today. It would nice to have some consensus and some direction so we aren't constantly revisiting this issue.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an avid wine lover, I certainly understand the romanticism of wine. But, at its core, the realist in me understands that wineries are not that different from pizza shops or petrol stations. They are a business just like any other business under WP:CORP making a product. It is pretty freaking awesome product but still just a product like mustard. We don't have List of mustard producers articles either. AgneCheese/Wine 05:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Agne, that is exactly the dilemma I see. Is a winery more like a lighthouse (or List of independent bookstores in the United States), or a mustard manufacturer. The project has made value judgments like this over time, presumably often without any grand plan but just what stuck and what didn't.--Milowent (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a fundamental questions to this dilemma is if the community is willing to give winery articles a "free pass" so to speak on establishing their notability according to WP:CORP? If the community is willing to ascribe wineries to a kind of special place and significances over other businesses (kinda like how we give WP:SCHOOLs and WP:ATHLETEs special significance over other buildings and people), then I can see a more valid reason for having a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable wineries. AgneCheese/Wine 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non arbitrary section break[edit]

The question is: what type of coverage is being cited in that wine companion book that you use? It feels like it is simply trivial coverage: that it, it simply lists the winery as existing, the year and production amounts, but otherwise does not attempt to further distinguish the wineries from each other. In other words, its the equivalent of a phone book. In that case, no, that one source is not sufficient for that list because you aren't showing why these elements are discriminate, and just listing out what comes from effectively a directory is created an indiscriminate list. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the book is shallow, it was not intended to confirm WP:N. Since the article is NOT about one individual winery, but about all of them, we do not need all of the items on the list to be notable??? (please show me a policy that states that if it is the case!!!!), therefore the source tries to claim WP:V and to be a WP:RS. You can see (I think) all the text that I used here. --Stefan talk 00:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that is an improvement (even though there is still that dreadful WP:POV WP:ADVERT section for flagship/iconic wines). But we still have the same WP:DIRECTORY of largely non-notable wineries. How different is this article from a List of autoparts stores in Chicago? A local chamber of commerce guide could be found as a source for their existence with information on things like establishment and other info. Of out of the red links, I see maybe 3 wineries that would like pass WP:CORP and have an article. What, again, is the value of Wikipedia being a directory listing for non-notable wineries? AgneCheese/Wine 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment here: We should be considering three levels of being worthy of inclusion:
  • Sufficiently notable to pass WP:CORP and have a reasonable sized article. No one will complain about this.
  • Barely notable to pass WP:CORP but any article would likely remain a perma-stub for a long time.
  • Not notable and fails WP:CORP.
The above lists should be containing elements of the first two types, and particularly important, should be used to present info about the second type of winery without having an article created on them; as long as there is something to show more than just that the winery exists. Thus , a final list may be composed of both blue and non-linked wineries, but there would be discrimination for their inclusion based on WP:CORP, and with editorial judgment to avoid creation of many smaller articles for the less notable ones. Now, again, in the above example, without knowing what this source is saying, it appears indiscriminate, with only 3 being of the first type and the rest of the third, and thus needs massive trimming. and likely deletion if only 3 end up on the list. (or merged to a larger region list of wineries). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of merging these smaller regional lists into a larger country based list has come in talks with other WP:WINE members. A List of notable Australian wineries or List of notable American wineries may be a feasible solution to keep these articles focused on notable wineries and provide some encyclopedic relevance. I'm not 100% convinced yet that these list articles are really worthwhile but it would definitely be better than the status quo. AgneCheese/Wine 15:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether perma-stub or not, I'd much sooner see linked lists for wine, because black links implies a complete list that includes wineries notable by way of association with the others. If a winery is only marginally notable, it can support a stub with production etc, keeping the list tidy and fulfilling the navigational and developmental list criteria. On this basis I could foresee a decent, substantial (but not over-crowded) country-based list emerging that might even be useful and informative. mikaultalk 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus does not seam to imply that all list items in a list must be notable? See runway contestants. --Stefan talk 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did offer a reason for the difference earlier on: the runway contestants constitute a complete, finite list in which entries are often notable solely by virtue of their membership of the competition, ie in order to create a complete list. The consensus you refer to appears to me to be an assumption based on the same principles, but they don't apply here. Firstly, a finite list of wineries is not possible, and secondly mere membership of that non-finite list does not confer notability. I'm not sure what value that consensus has if it's not based on viable criteria. mikaultalk 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the external links are removed ánd at least some of the wineries are notable enough for a wiki article. Otherwise this is just yet another spamhole in violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LSC

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but isn't there already a fairly clear guideline explaining that entries on standalone lists should all be notable in themselves? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 10 November 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/List_of_wineries_and_vineyards_in_Maine&oldid=1138028393"