Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domaine de Baron'arques

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The result was nomination withdrawn. I was foolish to just link to policies and guidelines as arguments (especially WP:COMMON). I regret wasting everyone's time by continuing with my foolish deletion crusade after it became clear the article was going to be kept. I personally offer to help make the article better as an apology. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine de Baron'arques

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

Appears to be a non-notable winery. A Google Books search turned up only one book with significant coverage of the winery, and that was an autobiography of one of the owners. When I looked at the creator's contributions, the contribs suggested a single-purpose account. That was not a surprise, as the article reminded me of an advertisement. Disclosure: I have edited the page to correct a typo and added a speedy tag, but later removed the speedy tag (the typo remains fixed, though). Nomination withdrawn. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion there's a possibility to write a decent article using multiple reliable sources: [1] (Wine Spectator), [2], [3] (La Dépêche du Midi, see also other articles by this newspaper in the G-news archives), [4] (France Today). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Vejvančický: WP: GNG says that a topic needs to have "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources"; Articles 2 and 3 are from the same newspaper, Article 4 is not reliable as it promotes the winery, and Articles 2, 3 and 4 are all local coverage, as Amatulic said below. And as Amatulic said below, a Wine Spectator review is not significant coverage, as it is nothing more than a routine review, and Wine Spectator does thousands of those per year. Besides, the creator's only edits are to that article, making me suspect soapboxing by a single-purpose account; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if the winery were notable (which, as I stated above, it isn't), soapboxing is forbidden by policy. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete, may change my mind to keep.~~ Weak keep. My first thought is, Wine Spectator doesn't count. That magazine's entire purpose is to publish wine reviews, and they publish countless thousands per year. The chance that a wine from any winery in the world has been reviewed in Wine Spectator approaches 100%. Coverage of a winery is a bit more meaningful, but still, it's Wine Spectator, not a good indication of notability. The other sources found by Vejvančický may be OK, but I'd be wary; a French winery covered by French sources is essentially local coverage. While WP:WINERY isn't an official guideline, due to the nature of the wine world, it is desirable to have more than regional coverage to be considered notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Amatulić ... I know of several notable Moravian wineries (actually, I'm a not notable Moravian winemaker maintaining some 400/500 hundred bushes of wine:) and I can imagine decent articles about them that would enrich our coverage of wine topics in various parts of the world. All I could cite would be local Czech coverage. What's wrong with that? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to policy, local coverage does not establish notability. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What policy? And, anyway, both you and Amatulić appear not to understand the meaning of the word "local". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not policy, but rather the guidelines WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Regardless of how I characterized the other sources, note that I wrote in my comment that "more than regional coverage" is desirable per WP:WINERY. When I know more about breadth of the other sources, I may still change my view to "keep" as I noted above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept the basic premise of WP:WINERY, which appears to be that wineries should be subject to stricter notability guidelines than other organisations. The requirement for notability of any topic, including a winery, is that it should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this one does. We have never required any subject to have attracted international coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the stricter inclusion criteria are given in that document. As I said, it isn't official, but reflects the general consensus in the Wikipedia Wine project. It would be nice if a source outside of France were found other than Wine Spectator, but for now I think they're satisfactory, so I am changing my entry to "weak keep". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This winery has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: WP: GNG says that a topic needs to have "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources". Article 5 is from Wine Spectator, which publishes exclusively about wine, so it is not a reliable source; Articles 7 through 11 are from the same newspaper. 6-11 are local coverage, as Amatulic said above, so they don't count as much. Besides, the creator's only edits are to that article, making me suspect soapboxing by a single-purpose account; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if the winery were notable (which, as I stated above, it isn't), soapboxing is forbidden by policy. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Spectator is a reliable source. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and has editorial integrity in objective reporting. Articles from the same newspaper about the same topic, but with varying topical themes and published at different times do not count as one source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How on earth is a publication that publishes exclusively about wine not a reliable source for wine? It's one of the most reliable sources that you can get, and the article runs to about 500 words, so is certainly significant coverage. The French sources offered by Vejvančický and Northamerica1000 are not local: France Today and Le Journal du Net are national publications, and La Dépêche du Midi is a regional newspaper. And I've been trying hard to find anything approaching soapboxing in the article and can only find facts presented in a straightforward neutral manner, but if there is any soapboxing that I have missed then the solution is to edit the article, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think ChromaNebula erred in characterizing Wine Spectator as an unreliable source. It's reliable enough, given that the opinions they publish have garnered trust by the public. The problem is, it isn't really an independent source. It's a wine industry source. It exists to publish reviews, and it publishes thousands of them each year. It routinely reviews decidedly non-notable wineries (you can find reviews about non-established or newly-opened wineries, for example). A review in Wine Spectator, therefore, doesn't serve to confer any notability whatsoever, so coverage in other sources should be found. The notability conferred by coverage in Wine Spectator is even weaker than Zagat for restaurants; we don't have an article about a restaurant just because it appeared in Zagat. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources including national level coverage have been provided. If the Wine Spectator mention was only a tasting note I would agree that it should be discounted (similar to a review in Zagat), but it is an full news article in a reliable source and contributes to notability. Here's another short (but non-trivial) article [12]. If the article has problems with neutrality (and it looks reasonably fine in that regard to me) then it should be solved via editing as mentioned by another user. Camw (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But we probably want to consider a merge with Château Mouton-Rothschild as nearly all of the winery's notability and independent coverage is tied into connection to Mouton as essentially a "winery brand". It is very common for us to merge smaller brand articles into the parent winery article see Maison Joseph Drouhin with its Oregon winery Domaine Drouhin, the numerous wine brands/vineyard estates rolled into the main Antinori and many brands of E & J Gallo Winery. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Regardless of whether the winery is notable or not, an article created by a single-purpose account should not be allowed to stand, as single-purpose accounts are usually used for soapboxing, and this does not look like an exception to me. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think you're being a bit too harsh here. Technically speaking I am a single-purpose account since I almost exclusively contain my editing to the narrow set of wine-related articles. So does that mean that the articles that I make, like this one I just finished, should not be allowed to stand? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-related articles are not a terribly narrow set, and you're not pushing an agenda with your editing, so you are not a single-purpose account. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate where in any guideline or policy it says that we should delete notable, reasonably neutral content because it was started by a possible single purpose account. Camw (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:GAME, WP:COMMON~~ Comment withdrawn. ChromaNebula (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is an incredibly weak argument, deleting a notable article because of the potential that the creator is a single purpose account in no way improves the encyclopedia per IAR (parent comment was edited to remove IAR and add WP:COMMON while I was typing this up, but the same sentiment applies). The overwhelming position of those in this discussion so far has been to keep the article, including input from a number of people who take a hard line approach to notability in the wine area. Camw (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please take care with adding comments as you appended a line to the end of my previous question with a comment that I did not make and I have now removed. Camw (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Time to quit, resign, give up, whatever. I apologize for any unwise comments. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2012 (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.