Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Burn

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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Burn

Seems non-notable and the article doesn't provide any references or links or anything to verify anything about it. Cburnett 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. A "lost" distillery sounds potentially noteworthy given the interest these days in whisky, and threatened by a new road may get more prominence. Google gave me only one reference to it (a single para in a longer article at [1]), but there may be other sources. The article as it stands seems weak, but I'd suggest tagging it for improvement. It's only a week old, so I think deletion would be premature. --BrownHairedGirl 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the article is about a stream named Wolf Burn, not the distillery itself. ScottW 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nonetheless, the distillery doesn't have an article. Perhaps that could be added. --Chaser 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the only google reference to "Wolf Burn Distillery" is from Wikipedia itself. Absent any references that it actually exists, I'm forced to conclude delete. BigDT 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please note that article is about a stream, not a distillery. The distillery text should probably be removed from the article. The stream is referred to in a document drawing electoral maps [2]. ScottW 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is about the Wolf Burn which does exist [3][4]. Geographic area that seems notable. MarsRover 07:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed the distillery information, leaving the article as a small stub. ScottW 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep real place. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This (from the Caithness Field Club Bulletin, i.e. the local hist/archaeology soc.) mentions the distillery being on this burn, one of only two in Caithness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't just put something into an encyclopedia because it exists. I can support the verification of the existence of the telephone pole in front of my house using public city hall and/or phone company plans. This does not mean I would be correct to place an "article" in Wikipedia on "Telephone pole #19845032349-595-0". An encyclopedia article is a distillation of accumulated research and study of a subject, previously reviewed and reported in reputable, reliable publications. I am not seeing that here. —Encephalon 04:28, 20 May 2006 (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.