Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery

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 to delete at this time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Roloson Winery

Non-notable winery. Tagged for notability months ago. Tag was removed, and a reference to Wines & Vines was added. However, a profile written up in Wines & Vines does not confer notability; it's just a profile that says nothing special about the winery that couldn't also apply to hundreds of other non-notable start-ups. Article prod removed, now going to AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator regarding WP:CORP: The crux of the issue involves a single article in a trade magazine about the subject winery. WP:CORP specifically requires sources (plural), not a single source. Also, trade magazines tend to lack sufficient independence of the subject because they depend on the organizations they cover for support. Therefore, "keep" arguments err when they rely on a single quasi-independent source as sufficient to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I consider the article being relied on for notability an example of public relations, not independent journalism. DGG (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination sums it up best - C L — 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. The nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the notability guideline. Wines & Vines is a magazine and a reliable source, and the article from Wines & Vines establishes notability. Moreover, http://www.winesandvines.com/search/?q=Roloson&x=0&y=0 shows some other articles which mention this winery. --Eastmain (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to see another reference, but that Sunset reference looks like it's reproducing somebody's wine blog. The information in it is so scant that it's hardly useful. The other references are primary-source from the winery itself; they don't count. Wines & Vines profiles wineries. That's part of their content. The existence of a profile doesn't confer notability. Did you read that write-up? It didn't even describe anything particular about the winery that makes it notable. Not the wines, not anything. It's practically boilerplate; that article could apply to hundreds of other non-notable wineries if you search-and-replace the name of the winery and make other minor edits. It's like the magazine picked somebody at random to do a profile on. Heck, my own family's winery was profiled in a magazine, but I'm sure not going to insist that an article be written about it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wines & Vines certainly isn't as notable a source as The New York Times, but it seems like a legitimate magazine, and the article is solely about the winery. If someone can convince me otherwise, then I will change my vote. - Merzbow (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per clarification on WP:CORP talk page. The other source from Sunset Magazine is one paragraph in a wine-pairing column, so insufficient. - Merzbow (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Wines & Vines article bears a byline ("by Larry Walker") which would not be the case if the article consisted only of a reprinted press release. The byline seems to me to mean that the article should be considered independent of the subject. --Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That point isn't in dispute, and isn't a rationale in my nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not consider the byline proves indendence. I go rather by the nature of the account, which ends with a considerable section listing some of their wines and their prices. Trade magazine stories can be hard to deal with, but I look for some indication of more than rewriting what the subject said about himself. DGG (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wineries are like resorts and hotels, they are just as notable, have long standing histories, thousands or millions of visitors, encompass very large tracts of land, make millions of dollars, and sell their own brands of products, much more important than say a high school, we have room for them.^MY♥_INchile 02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, look at this AfD again.... This particular winery is a small start-up. It doesn't have any of the qualities you mention. Furthermore WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain I feel that sufficient notability has been established. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, on what basis has Eastman's comment established sufficient notability? One article in a trade magazine still fails WP:CORP. We need multiple sources, not one. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N seems satisfied, even if "only just, by the skin of the grape". :P Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to win awards. Wines and Vines is exactly the sort of thing notability is about - a trade publication decides to write a feature on the business, thus the industry believes it is worth noting. I added a couple mentions in reliable sources, both for the same proposition, which is that they're using the controversial Enologix system to produce award-worthy (not necessarily good but award winning) wines. The Times article is just a passing mention but the New York Times article gives it several paragraphs in a long article, somewhere more than trivial but less than substantial. Anyway, there are multiple independent sources and it seems to be a solid winery. There are a couple dozen other wineries that should have articles before this one but on the rule of thumb I've found that perhaps 1/3 of all the wineries in Napa and Sonoma are notable, this is somewhere near the border. Wikidemo (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there isn't sufficient sources to pass the notability bar for me. There is the piece in the trade press, but the rest are passing mentions. The Times piece uses tham as an example, but really isn't about them. And there's not much else beyond that. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (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.