Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearmund Cellars

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. There seems to be a consensus here that the subject is not notable by our standards. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pearmund Cellars[edit]

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

probably notable, but too promotional to rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far too surmountable of a problem to warrant deletion. If you are unwilling to improve the article, you could identify the problems you have on the articles talk page for other editors to help address. RadioFan (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I don't see the article as promotional, but honestly, this is a medium-smallish production winery that hasn't garnered any significant reliable-source coverage beyond its local region. As someone with relatives in the business, I can say that if you have a winery operating for a decade or so, you're going to have some coverage somewhere, and this winery doesn't have any more than would be expected for any other non-notable winery. I'll add that this is why WP:WINERY was drafted, although it isn't an official guideline, it offers some sensible guidance in the context of wineries and what constitutes significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there has been local print coverage as well as interviews with the ABC affiliate in DC along with coverage in several books on wineries in Virginia and North Carolina.--RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage doesn't suffice for WP:CORP. Especially for wine topics, coverage should be national or international. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a review of their 2002 Viognier in the Oct 15, 2003 Wine Spectator satisfy that for you?--RadioFan (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:WINESOURCES for the reason, especially pertaining to Wine Spectator. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WINESOURCES really isn't that different that WP:GNG. It's looking for multiple reliable sources. So if I understand correctly a review in Wine Spectator, coverage in the local newspaper, an interview by the ABC affiliate in Nielsen market #8 and coverage in books both on both the Virginia wine business and the North Carolina wine business aren't enough for you. Am I understanding correctly?--RadioFan (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough for you"? Why make this personal? As explained clearly in WP:WINESOURCES, it's the nature of the business that just about every wine commercially sold will have a review in some reliable source; thousands of wines get reviewed in Wine Spectator, so a wine review there doesn't make a winery notable. Additionally, see WP:NOTINHERITED - notability is not inherited, so a notable wine doesn't necessarily imply a notable winery. As to local coverage, WP:CORP requires more than local coverage. As for books, it depends on the book; if it's simply a guidebook to wineries in Virginia (there aren't many wineries, so "coverage" is easy to come by), then no, such coverage obviously doesn't make the winery notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment language has been nuetralized a bit, additional references have been added and a copyvio from the company website has been removed. RadioFan (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any article about this subject in particular or is it just noted along with other wineries in guidebooks? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent, non-local sources to support the idea that the winery has any kind of notability outside of it's small local region. If this was a local Virginia pizzeria there would be no doubt about the lack of notability. There is no reasons why wineries should be held to a lower threshold of notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This winery is notable and significant because of its place in a rapidly growing wine industry in the state of Virginia. It is among the older Virginia vineyards and wineries. The winery and its founder have played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process. There is also a very similar article for Barboursville Vineyards in Virginia.--Jlgorman24 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — Jlgorman24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A single-purpose account is expected to argue for keeping. You do realize that none of those points mean that the winery is notable?
- ...because of its place in a rapidly growing wine industry... - that's meaningless, and not a claim to notability.
- It is among the older Virginia vineyards and wineries -- not a claim to notability.
- ...played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process.' - that might make the winemaker notable, but not the winery. Notability is not inherited. I see nothing to indicate the winery played such a role.
- There is also a very similar article for Barboursville Vineyards -- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article. If that other article is also about a non-notable winery, then it, too, should be deleted.
You might have a case with the third point if you could provide any sources proving it. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call this a single purpose account simply because it has few edits. If you look a bit deeper you'll find that this account created the original article through the AFC process and has been working to improve it.--RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A SPA is clearly defined, regardless of how few edits there are, and regardless of whether the author went through AFC. The fact remains, the account has a single purpose. Nothing wrong with that, but identifying such accounts in AFD discussions is helpful for the closing admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if there were independent, reliable sources showing that the Pearmund Cellars has "...played a significant role in the development of Virginia wine and influencing the regulatory process", I would consider that a sign of notability. I don't think it is a case of inherited notability since the founder/owner/winemaker is one in the same and is essentially the identity of the winery itself. If it was a hired winemaker then it would be different. But influencing the entire Virginia wine industry is a very strong claim and will need equally strong support from reliable sources. The article currently doesn't have this support and looking online as well as checking several respected books on American wine is not turning up any support either. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book on North Carolina wine mentions a Yadkin Valley winery going to Pearmund Cellars for guidance.--RadioFan (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from first-hand knowledge, while winemakers compete in business, they still interact with one another as colleagues. One winemaker getting advice from another winemaker isn't unusual. I don't see how that can possibly suggest notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for all the comments pointing out the importance of referencing published material for an article. Growing industries that impact the economy of a state and region and have documented expansion potential should be important and significant encyclopedic material. The contributing businesses and people in that industry should also be well documented. A business and it's founder, who have been listed as significant contributors in multiple published books and independent news reports, in an industry recognized by a published Governor's report as having significant economic impact to the state and region, seems like it is worthy of having an article. I purposely left out published promotional type material in the original article in order to focus on the winery's place in the Virginia wine industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlgorman24 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A run-of-the-mill promotional article created by a single-purpose-account, no notability outside of routine local coverage, thus a failure of WP:N. Just another day at AfD... Tarc (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All editors here are encouraged to remember not to bite the newcomers. RadioFan (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bitey to identify an SPA. It is what it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete If you're expecting me to copywrite your adverts, how much are you paying? Notability is probably enough to justify an article (if appropriately written), but if shills can't be bothered to follow our corporate styleguide, I'm not here to do their work for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any competent medium-sized winery will be mentioned in one paragraph tourist guide listings, described in local media and have their wines reviewed in the Wine Spectator and other wine publications that publish thousands of reviews a year. This is run of the mill stuff that doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage. That's the kind of coverage that I found when I searched for sources. On the other hand, I learned that the owner, Chris Pearmund seems notable. He owns several wineries, is active in trade groups, and consults for other wineries. So, until this winery achieves notability, it would be best to have a biography of him, and redirect the winery name to his article. By the way, the ABC affiliate TV interview doesn't even discuss this winery. Pearmund discusses his career, the Virginia wine industry, and his other business ventures.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the "deletes" seem to agree notability has been shown; content disputes are not handled by deleting the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Precisely ONE (Dingley's "Notability is probably enough...") call to delete is of the nature you describe. Do not misrepresent one editor's opinion and attempt to say all the rest are just like that, when they clearly are not. That is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, after your comments about Malleus at the Science Apologist AN thread, I don't think you should be accusing others of "intellectual dishonesty". Joefromrandb (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well Joe, strawman arguments won't distract from the fact that you just lied about the basis of most ever delete vote in this discussion. Thankfully, it is so blatant and so obvious a lie that it should not affect the final outcome. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Strawman" is indeed the correct Wikipedia response to being called on bullshit; at least you deserve credit for not blue-linking to it. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb I did not concede notability. To the contrary. I made a good faith search for significant coverage in reliable sources, found only brief mentions, and concluded that the winery is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now if that little sidebar is finished, I'll add that WP:WINESOURCES is not part of any guideline or policy and until it is, it should have no bearing whatsoever on any AfD. In fact, it should probably be considered deprecated as it's been stale for roughly 3 years. This article meets WP:GNG. And for safe measure, let me add that my !vote is based on the article clearly meeting GNG and not what anyone else said or didn't say. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, Tarc has omitted that even the nominator agrees that the article is notable. But I guess I'm "lying" about that too. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator agrees to no such thing. "Probably notable" is not equal to "is notable." I agree with Tarc, that's a mischaracterization. Also, Joefromrandb has apparently not looked at WP:WINESOURCES closely enough. It is not an official guidance, but it was carefully derived from official guidance in the context of wine. If you have a problem with that document, or suggestions for improvements, you are invited to contribute your views on the talk page. Simply asserting that the winery meets WP:GNG doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to contribute to WP:WINESOURCES; it's simply nonsense intended to aid deletionists and thankfully isn't part of any policy or guideline. And yes, "simply asserting the winery meets WP:GNG" does not make it so. The fact that the winery meets WP:GNG makes it so. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Joe, neither you nor the other "keep" voters (or the article, itself, for that matter) has demonstrated that the winery meets WP:GNG. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so, if that "fact" was evident. What is abundantly clear is that the sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV. And false allegations about other Wikipedians motivations serves only to weaken the rest of your arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Tarc's false allegations weaken his argument. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Enough. Let's forget about calling other editors "deletionists" and concentrate on the notability of Pearmund Cellars. One of the problems for me is that some of the sources presented are offline, so it's hard for me to verify that the coverage of them is reliable and significant. However, a quick search through reveals that iUniverse, History Press and Apprentice House appear to all be self published sources, and the USA Today source has a passing mention to the vineyard. I haven't checked all 16 sources in depth, but it looks like all the others are on the same lines - promotional, not really significant coverage. When they've got coverage in things like this, we can talk about an article, but until then there's not really enough to make an encyclopedia article out of this, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:58, 13 August 2013 (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.