Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoctin Creek Distilling Company

Add links
Source: 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 at the least. –MuZemike 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catoctin Creek Distilling Company

Catoctin Creek Distilling Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Scohar70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable distilling company. Spam piece. Has briefly appeared on NBC but that seems about it. Nothing apart from that. Passing mention in Washington Post. Created by the founder of the company no less. Nothing to see here but advertising. "Contested" prod. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that for some reason Scohar70 struck through my rationale. He must find it so compelling he cannot bear to see it. Scohar70, do you have a personal interest in this? I don't think you've confirmed or denied it. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further:
First of all, it is a distillery, not a brewery.
The article is not spam. Spam is something forced upon people, and this is not.
It has been carefully written to be completely objective, and it is newsworthy in the geographic region around Virginia. Admittedly, it is not nationally or internationally newsworthy, but there has never been a requirement of Wikipedia that some topic have universal significance before posting. People must search to find this article, and if they are searching for the article, why not provide them this objective information rather than nothing? Furthermore, there is a lot of interest from people in the area from this Wiki page. It is a valuable and useful search tool for many people.
We do have other press... several articles in distilled spirits online media, several articles in print journalism, and so on. Would it help if I post those as references too?
There are many other distilleries who have Wiki pages similar to this one. They have minimal (but growing) newsworthiness, are about a current company, and some are objectively written--some by the founders, some not. Are you going to delete these:

Scohar70 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable by WP:CORP and WP:NTEMP, "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." The fact that it's written objectively (or not) is not really relevant to AfD, where we have to ascertain notability, not discuss content.
Users can get to it without searching, from Gin#Notable brands and Rye whiskey#American rye whiskey.
As for the other distilleries, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak delete' Weak keep - Quoting the article's creator: "They have minimal (but growing) newsworthiness." Too minimal at the moment, perhaps. The company and the article both need more time to gestate — to rack up awards and reputation, expand sales, etc. I appreciate that there was a good-faith effort to decommercialize the tone of the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've ported over the photo of the Catoctin Creek still to Microdistillery. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also changing my vote from Weak Delete to Weak Keep under the theory that the best way to "gestate" an article is to keep it up as a stub at WP. Microdistilling is an industry in its infancy and is very regionalized, making it well-nigh impossible to meet typical WP notability standards. This particular firm has been featured on NBC News and mentioned in the Washington Post, which seems sufficient, given the state of the industry — which is basically where craft brewing was in the early 1980s. The article isn't spammy in its current incarnation. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is unsound. The NBC report is just a routine news report of a few minutes. The Washington Post is a trivial reference. This is nowhere near enough for GNG. The "state of the industry" is wholly irrelevant. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if I posted references (or if someone NOT ME posted references) to the many other print and online articles and awards we have received? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scohar70 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would help mightily. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more references that provide notability to the article in the hopes it improves the article per this discussion. See below as well for more references. Scohar70 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a fairly recent start-up, but in a culinary niche. It has already received quite a bit of substantial coverage and will surely receive more. Deletion would in no way improve the eencyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is all this substantial coverage you mention? I see nothing but a few routine news reports and business listings. Nothing that would satisfy GNG and CORP. Arguments about "culinary niches", "recent start-up" etc. are irrelevant. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all the media sources cited in the article and noted in this discussion. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NBC report is just routine news coverage of the sort that you see every day. The Washington Post is just a passing mention: "Closer to home, in Virginia, you can find great single-malts and ryes from Copper Fox Distillery in Sperryville and a beautiful unaged whiskey (as well as a slightly aged rye) from the recently opened Catoctin Creek Distilling Co. in Purcellville." Tastingtables is an obscure trade website. Hence, not enough to pass GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following are notable news articles not currently listed in the references. I can post them or someone can do it instead of me. The last one is even a significant mention in the Wall Street Journal. Isn't that notable? Here are the references:
Scohar70 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more references that provide notability to the article in the hopes it improves the article per this discussion. Scohar70 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references in the national press are minor asides - not significant coverage. The local press coverage is similar and reprints from your website are not reliable sources. BTW, can you confirm that you are Scott Harris the proprietor? noq (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The NBC story is a national story about Catoctin Creek only. It is a big story. The Wall Street Journal Story is a big story too, half of it about the national economics, and half of it about the distillery to put the national economics into perspective. The remaining stories from the local press can be obtained from non-distillery websites.
Yes, I am the proprietor, but the article has been written in a neutral style, and the COI rules do not forbid this, they just discourage it in most cases. The article is completely neutral and informative. As user Freakshownerd above said, "Deletion would in no way improve the eencyclopedia."
So how does this ultimately get decided?
173.72.220.242 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall street journal used your company in 3 paragraphs to illustrate something general - in no way is the article about you or does anything other than show you got a loan. As for how it gets ultimately decided, that is what this discussion is about. After a few days, an administrator will review the arguments and make a ruling either way. If there is not much discussion or there is no clear consensus then it may be relisted for further discussion. noq (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The company and the article both need time to gestate": Wikipeia is not a crystal ball and we have to wait until the company does gestate before it is notable enough for an article. I was initially for a weak keep but changed my mind. I don't think the neutrality of the article is in dispute, and fair play to Scohar there (I'm assuming the occasional IP posts are simply mistakes in not being logged on). I'm more concerned actually with the insertion into the articles on Gin and Rye whiskey since we could add any number of companies into the articles there (though there is perhaps a stronger case to keep it at rye whiskey since it's more of a niche style of whiskey these days apparently); the article itself I have less concern about its existence if it's not given undue prominence elsewhere. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (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/Catoctin_Creek_Distilling_Company&oldid=1069807333"