Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonoma County wineries (2nd nomination)

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonoma County wineries

Sonoma County wineries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article serves the purpose of essentially being a list and needlessly advertising for these wineries, which is something the Wine Project actively discourages with Wikipedia not being a wineguide. Furthermore we currently have a wine region article-Sonoma County AVA that includes an appropriate external link to a list of Sonoma County wineries. I have already taken the liberty of adding some of the non-spam content to the AVA article where it is more appropriate. This article serves no purpose now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the article redirect to your AVA article? I would never think to look under Sonoma County AVA for a discussion of the wine making industry in Sonoma County. It seems sort of esoteric and not very helpful type of title. Wouldn't the discussion of the develoment of the wine industry in Sonoma County belong in an article about Sonoma County (or daughter article of that main article) instead of about the Sonoma County AVA? Or no? Doesn't Sonoma County include more (or less) area than the Sonoma County AVA? Why not just move this article to the AVA article since it does not look at if there has been any additional useful content added to the AVA article? Finally, what article would link to the individual winery articles? Aren't you making those winery articles into orphan articles? Is the Winery project saying not to have individual winery articles because that is just advertising for the winery? Doesn't that apply to any type of business that has a Wikipedia article? I assume that if a delete did happen any links to the article would be adjusted to this AVA article? Just some of my concerns about the deletion. Obviously I am the only one who has proposed any improvements to the article and I have not had time to get back to it. --Tinned Elk 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After this article is deleted a redirect could be made but, again, since Wikipedia is not a directory or a wineguide why would anyone come to an encyclopedia wanting to find a listing of wineries? Your comment that Sonoma County AVA is "sort of esoteric and not very helpful type of title" is quite odd since most everyone with some elements of knowledge about American wine knows that our wine regions regions are known as AVAs-American Viticultural Area. That designation alone is the reason why you can even have the words "Sonoma County" on a wine bottle. The main Sonoma County article should be dedicated to the municipal area with a summary paragraph and link to the wine region. All discussions about the wine, wine history, and relevant winemaking info are more appropriately served in an article about the wine region. For other examples see Champagne, France & Champagne (wine region), Walla Walla, Washington and Walla Walla AVA, Augusta, Missouri and Augusta AVA, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since most people who are on Wikipedia are not "everyone with some elements of knowledge about American wine knows that our wine regions regions are known as AVAs-American Viticultural Area " - many people just are looking for information about various topics and don't already know (or care) what America has done with the regulation of their wine regions. It doesn't matter, a merge and redirect is fine. --Tinned Elk 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and people who aren't wine enthusiasts have probably heard of Sonoma County and the wineries there, but not AVAs. If this is deleted and not merged, there should be a redirect put in its place. --Phirazo 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Further note regarding links to individual wineries. The vast majority of wineries do not pass WP:CORP to merit an article in Wikipedia. Those that do typically are notable for some significant reasons beyond just being a winery-such as a notable contribution to the history of wine making in Sonoma county. Those wineries would develop a link in the article through the noting of that accomplishment. It is much the same way that not everyone of the hundreds of Chateaux in Bordeaux will merit a wikipedia page but those that do have their articles linked through their relevant notings in the Bordeaux wine, Bordeaux wine regions, History of Bordeaux wine, Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 articles instead of general List of Bordeaux wineries article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia not being a wineguide a prohibition against listing wineries in an area. Or that listing wineries in an area is just a "list farm" and advertising. I did not create the list on Sonoma County wineries but someone put some time into it and I have not seen the rational for deleting it explained anywhere in writing. --Tinned Elk 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well first off, WP:WINEGUIDE is an essay based primarily on the spirit and letter of WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A wineguide is a listing of wineries and wines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the encyclopedic focus of the area an its wines are best served in the AVA articles about the wine region rather then an article "advertising" the wineries. The purpose of WP:WINEGUIDE is to steer editors to focus on the encyclopedic writing, not listing wineries and wines that people might be interested in. Thats what the commercial wineguides are for. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the "vast majority" of Sonoma wineries are non-notable is simply false. I don't see anyone who keeps up on the local or national press could think that. The commercial winery guides are flat-out not a suitable substitute for Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage. A list is a very effective way to tie that coverage together in this case. Wikidemo 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When compared to the standards of WP:CORP, especially taking into account the sparseness of non-trivial reliable source mentions (i.e. beyond simply reviews on the wine) then no it is not a false statement. A majority of Sonoma's 250 wineries don't even have distribution beyond the west coast of the United States. While there are a fair number that do and that certainly meet the standards of WP:CORP, it is imperative for Wikipedia editors to move beyond our own systematic bias and take into consideration the worldwide readership that Wikipedia has. What maybe personally familiar and notable to us may not be to the majority of our readership--hence the reason that we have notability standards like WP:CORP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sonoma County AVA as this article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Some useful content exists but has been merged into Sonoma County AVA. "FooBar AVA" is the correct naming convention for this type of article. If we have a large list of notable Sonoma wineries, then it might make sense to include them, but not just a laundry list of all wineries. —dgies^t_c 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the proper place for information about an American wine region and its wineries really is the article on the AVA. The AVA is the legal defined area, and is a concept that's well known in the wine world. Notable wineries can easily be mentioned in the article, but I don't see any more a benefit of having a list of many non-notable wineries than having an article listing the restaurants in a city. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge non-list content to Sonoma County AVA and redirect. Sonoma County wineries is a logical search target (readers who don't know wine wouldn't know to search for Sonoma County AVA), but the list is a mere directory of wineries, and doesn't fulfill the purposes of lists in Wikipedia.. I'm sure there is an external link that can be added to Sonoma County AVA to provide readers with a list of Sonoma County wineries, if that is what they are looking for. --Phirazo 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I will note that for a reader to actually search for Sonoma County wineries will be exceedingly rare because, again, the average reader is not expecting Wikipedia to be a directory of wine guides. For the readers that lack awareness of AVAs they would probably be more incline to search for Sonoma County wine which is already a redirect to the appropriate article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and having "Sonoma County wineries" redirect to Sonoma County AVA is harmless. As the RfD page says "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect". I see no reason not to redirect if the result is merge or delete (Note: If anything is merged, it must stay as a redirect for GFDL compliance). --Phirazo 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge with Sonoma County AVA. Why is this article being nominated a second time in three months??? This subject is beyond notable; it is a distinct encyclopedic subject that is immensely important to the local economy, food, and culture. The new article is slightly misplaced - the big issue is winemaking in the county as a business, not grapes grown and bottles labeled in the AVA. However, in this particular case they're coextensive and I don't see why we need two separate articles. I do take umbrage at the notion that linking to or covering a winery is "advertising" and "spam" or that we should not make lists. These lists are very useful to organizing and expanding coverage of winemaking in California, which is woefully sparse. Somebody seems to have an agenda here, that WP:WINE doesn't like covering the business of wineries as much as covering the wines. But these articles are also a part of WP:SFBA and WP:California. -- Wikidemo 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, wine making issues, history and business are covered in well written appellation articles. We haven't gotten there yet with some of the American AVAs but reference Champagne (wine region) and Languedoc wine. Also, what purpose does a list of largely non-notable wineries which do not pass WP:CORP to warrant an article have? What purpose that couldn't also be served as an external link to a website list of wineries? As someone in the business of wine, married to a winemaker, I think you are being a bit presumptuous in the "agenda" conspiracy theories. I know the business of wine and I see no reason why the wine business should not be held to the same Wikipedia standards of WP:CORP and WP:SPAM that we would hold the typical boat maker, restaurant, local newspaper, etc. Wine is wonderful but the act of making wine doesn't confer any extra or special notability on a business. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not presumptuous at all. You've stated your agenda in explaining the deletions, and it's also in the pages of the wine project. You came right out in this discussion and said that most wineries are non-notable, that you think the coverage of wineries ought to be limited, and that lists of wineries are "spam" and "advertisements." The point of making a list is the point of making any list, to tie resources together. Without a list I cannot follow the articles down from an AVA to the individual wineries in the AVA. Presumably all the ones covered by articles are notable, and it's not spam to link to articles. Lists often validly admit items that don't qualify as notable, but another useful feature is to alert people to which important wineries don't have articles - most, at this point. Quite a few of the Sonoma County wineries, probably more than half, could probably pass the formal requirements of WP:CORP - multiple articles written about them in significant, reliable publications. You, and the project, have actually argued that a higher standard of notability should be imposed because wineries get a lot of press. You've also tried to pull rank on me twice now. I'm in the business too, if you must know. Wikidemo 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. You've alluded multiple times that "that WP:WINE doesn't like covering the business of wineries" and my admission of my off wiki activities was in response to this in that I do know the business and obviously care about Wikipedia's coverage. Again, your interjecting presumption here in interpreting this as pulling rank. I do disagree with your assessment that "more then half" of Sonoma's wineries 250 wineries would be notable enough for articles (my own personal estimate is around 30%). Restaurants get a lot of the same type of "reliable source coverage" that you speak of-Local newspaper & travel guide reviews. Heck, I remember one cute little Indian restaurant that I went to near Chinatown that had a 3x5 bulletin board covered with newspaper clippings and awards from some culinary events (Best of San Francisco, etc). A lot of local newspaper coverage. Yet I sincerely doubt that I will ever see a Wikipedia article on them. Again, I just don't see why wineries should get any extra doses of "special notability" just because they make wine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat the dead issue, but the point of including a list is as Wikidemo says above, to tie resources together. Without a list I cannot follow the articles down from an AVA to the individual wineries in the AVA. I am not saying that every winery in the list is notable enough to have an article. Why does that mean they are not notable enough to include in the list? I see lots of lists (wine related lists) at wikipedia and it does seem that there is an agenda to delete these wine related lists. Why? Have you looked at Wikipedia:Lists?? If this is the decision of the project, then I think you all should rewrite your little essay (WP:WINEGUIDE) and spell it out, NO LISTS OF WINERIES and no links to winery articles because that is just spam!!! I have to say that this campaign has really turned me off of joining the wine project or working on any of these articles again. Sorry, not very welcoming or helpful. I particularly think that there is some mixed signals when you say that everyone knows about American AVA organization and then say you are trying to make this less biased and more worldwide. --Tinned Elk 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you are turned off on the Wine Project but keep in mind that I am just a single editor, not the sum and whole of the project. Back to your ending point. I'm a bit confuse as how you are interpreting it as "mixed" signals in developing our AVAs article and making our American articles less bias and more worldwide. That doesn't follow. Our worldwide wine readerships is probably quite familiar with the concepts of AVAs since there are international appellation systems throughout-AOC, DOC & DOCG, DO, and IGT to name a few. In fact, not organizing our wine region articles into AVA article is probably infinitely more confusing and unhelpful to our international readers. As for your beginning point, the only "resource" of a list of mostly non-notable wineries is to serve as a directory which longstanding Wikipedia policies discourage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists are often fine, but I don't really see an advantage of having an list of mostly (permanent) red links, in a category that would be difficult to verify if its completeness. Winery articles and links are also useful (at least to me), if there is something notable about the winery beyond the fact that it makes wine. Wine is wonderful, but at its core it is a business and should be subject to the same rules as any other business. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep As I pointed out in the last AfD, the subject of Sonoma County wineries is the subject of several published books: Sonoma County Wineries (Postcard History Series), Sonoma: The Ultimate Winery Guide, and Sonoma County Wineries (Images of America). This is a notable encyclopedic subject in an of itself which should have an article, regardless of whether the article has a list of wineries in it or not. And a list of wineries is not advertising or a violation of WP:NOT#DIR any more than a list of television stations or any other numerous lists of companies. If the problem is that the list may be promoting a number of non-notable wineries then the solution, which should be discussed on the article's talk page and not at AfD, is to remove wineries which are not notable; but there is no good reason not to list notable wineries. Even if assuming Agne27's estimate is correct that 30% of 250 wineries are notable, then that means a list of about 75 or so is appropriate (which is a little less than half the size of the present list). As for the Sonoma County AVA article, if any of it was derived from the Sonoma County wineries article then we cannot keep that article and delete this article without violating GFDL attribution requirements. I really can't think of a good reason for there to be a separate article about the AVA, and I believe that Sonoma County wineries is a better name per Wikipedia naming conventions, especially to "use common names" and to "prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations", so I would recommend merging and redirecting the Sonoma County AVA article to this one. Please note that Wikipedia is not just for the "worldwide wine readership [who] is probably quite familiar with the concepts of AVAs", it is also for the average person who might have a passing interest in wines and wineries and have no knowledge of how it happens to be regulated in the United States. If the phrase "Sonoma County" with respect to wine means an AVA which is not the same as the actual political boundaries of the county, that can and should be explained in the article. DHowell 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with deleting the AVA article. When it comes to wine in the United States the defined appellations are the most important consideration when it comes to naming. Even if this article is not deleted, the AVA level article should be kept as well as it is where viticulural information about the AVA belongs, and all info about notable article belongs in the article about the federally defined wine region. The Bethling^(Talk) 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I have to chuckle that DHowell references wine guides and travel guides as support for the notability and purpose of a list of wineries. There is no reason to dispute that because that is what such lists are for as directories and travel guides. However, I respectfully will disagree with the ill-informed suggestion of merging the AVA article into the winery article. Wine regions are the fundamental basics of the wine world and as the Bethling noted these are federally defined areas. The whole entire reason why any winery in Sonoma county is able to use the words Sonoma County on their wine label is because of the fact that it is an AVA.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry to be waffling so much on this. Since the ONLY content of the Sonoma County AVA article is the content of the Sonoma County wineries article that was moved to the AVA article, and since the point of the article nominated for deletion is that it covers a political unit of the state of California, I think the article should stay. As DHowell (and I) have suggested, the article could use with some clean up and further development, but deleting it is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am not sure what wiki would gain by having the AVA article with a bunch of redlinks to apparently non-notable AVA thingies and I do not see any move on the part of anyone to make the AVA article stand alone. BUT I would vote to keep this article. Again. I actually had done some research and was considering how to improve the article. Just had not gotten around to it. Agne your chuckling and condescension is not helping here. --Tinned Elk 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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.