Talk:List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article probably needs to go to WP:AFD

It violates many of the standards of WP:LIST, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It comes across wholly as a yellow pages WP:ADVERT. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this much appears like a WP:LINKFARM. deMURGH ^talk 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Although ideally you would redlink the ones deserving articles and outside link the others. Rmhermen (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that article contains a large amount of information in the header section that is relevant. As for the lists, WP:SALAT gives editors broad discretion about what kind of lists may be created. NJ Wine (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can agree with "relevant," but we have here two precise tools to get the word out: a list of wineries (and breweries, distilleries) located here, and an article about the industry (New Jersey wine). A list should be a list. An article should be an article. To conflate or combine the two into one will dull the tool. We don't need two articles. We don't need two lists. Therefore, we should incorporate the backstory to the article. With a brief introduction (emphasis on brief) we should allow the list to be a list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure that we should detach the article from the list. The New Jersey wine article only covers wine production, whereas this article covers wine, beer, and spirits. If we remove the top section of this article, we lose the history of beer and spirits in NJ. NJ Wine (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let me do a run through of the article later on tonight. The introduction for a list should be brief--the general assumption being that the material will be covered in other articles that link to this as a separate list. We already have a wine article...it does needs to be expanded (eventually) beyond the production statistics I put in last week. The wine article should be expanded to include geology and climate (gout de terroir), discussion of the AVAs, production information (procedures, market forces, varieties, etc.), reception and awards, licensing/legal issues, history. We need a NJ beer article that posits a comprehensive discussion of mass-market brewers, brew-pubs, craft beers, NJ's production of each, yields/production stats, types of beers, licensing/legal/industry issues. We need a NJ distilling article. So far there is only one functioning distillery. More in history--even illegal Jersey Lightning--but it should include history of distilling in NJ, stats regarding production, NJ legal/licensing issues, future distilleries. Considering the state is liberalizing its licensing laws regarding distilling, we might have more distilleries in the state in the near future. We should determine naming conventions, and figure out together how to organize the articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Recommendations after brief look-see: 1. Change the name of the article to List of Breweries, Wineries, and Distilleries in New Jersey 2. Brief introduction paragraph, maybe a picture, statement that "this is an incomplete list that will be updated as new businesses are licensed and begin to operate." 3. Each section will have a brief 3-4 sentence summary culled from the introductory material currently at the top of the article. 4. Clean up citations and references. I'll see what I can do with it in a few minutes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still needs to be cleaned up and will be over the next few days. 1 is done, 2 and 3 is started. Your thoughts? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted changes

ColonelHenry, After thoroughly reading the updated article, I reverted your changes because of some statements that may be inaccurate or misleading. I think some of your proposals are good (e.g., add a picture), but I would like the discussing the following statements.

(1)It includes neither those former producers that have dissolved or gone out of business nor does it include businesses in development and not yet licensed. A winery or brewery can be licensed but not yet in business, and will not be included on this list. I know with wineries in NJ that normally they get their licenses well in advance of when they open.

(2)New Jersey's alcohol control laws and licensing requirements have permitted a healthy environment for small-scale, privately-owned microbreweries and brewpubs can survive against a global brand like Anheuser-Busch, and a regional chain of brewpubs like Iron Hill. This statement is an opinion, and should not be in a Wikipedia article. Some brewers may not view the state's business environment as healthy.

(3)Before 1981, New Jersey had one licensed winery, Renault Winery, in Atlantic County, because Prohibition-era statutes limited the state to one winery per one million residents. This statement is very inaccurate. There was more than one winery in NJ before 1981. Tomasello Winery was founded in 1933, Balic Winery was founded in 1967, and I believe that there may have been a few other which are no longer in business. NJ Wine (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) If you changed "and not yet licensed" to "or not yet licensed" you would have made your point. Instead, you eradicated it. (2) It's not an opinion, it's a reflection on the variety of licenses. I was looking for a cite for it and would have posted one forthwith, because I remember reading an analysis of that in a trade magazine that wasn't immediately within reach at the time I added that line. (3) The law before 1981 was linked to population, just because there were a couple more, you edit the line, not eradicate. You eradicated without valid reasons. You reverted a logical name redirect without reason. You eradicated a reformat that IMHO improved the sloppiness and overlapping of this article with other articles. Your behavior is verging on "owning the article" despite WP:OWN. I am not amused and will no longer contribute here in your kingdom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, This is not my kingdom, and neither one of us can unilaterally dictate what goes in this article. I included several of your changes in this version, including Laird's # 1 license and the Royal Society of Arts statement. This is also part of Wikipedia bold, revert, discuss process. You made some very bold changes, very much transforming the article, I reverted many (but not all) of them, and now we can discuss the future direction of this article. I just re-read both the current and former versions of the article, and here are my feeling about some of your changes:

(1) Because this article contains both a list section and an article section, I would prefer that we not call it "List of breweries, wineries and distilleries."

(2) The line about George Washington liking Laird's products is fine.

(3) The line about a few wineries not belonging to an AVA is fine.

(4) The line about 1.72 million gallons of wine per year is okay as long as you have a source for this number, and we add a year to this (e.g., "In 2011").

(5) Unless we use it as a quote, I am uncomfortable in adding that NJ brewing environment is healthy. This is an opinion. To be flat out honest, I had a New Jersey microbrewer personally tell me that the state made it difficult for small brewers,

(6) I am indifferent about changing the format from a list to a table, as long as we have material that we can sort by (e.g., year established). NJ Wine (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a list, not an article. Sure the articles are needed, but to conflate a list and an article makes this page sloppy. Despite what you may think, your controlling actions are effectively "owning" this article. Being WP:BOLD doesn't mean to dominate the page. I have advised admins of your actions. I choose to no longer contribute to this article as long as you continue to "own" it. Why waste my time here if you're going to continue these actions. I do not appreciate your behavior. I do not appreciate my time wasted. Do not contact me again. And please, do not cross my path again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

RFCbot recruited me randomly to respond here. In my experience, an RFC addressing multiple questions are rarely helpful. If you want outside opinion, please narrow this down to one or more single-question RFCs. Thanks. Jojalozzo 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move problem

Why did you revert back the title? Quite frankly, I'm not about to get into the back and forth of a reverting war. This is a list, not an article. It should be called a "list." I believed that my suggestions, redirected title, and revisions improved the article. You provided no reason for your bald reversion to the status quo ante. Thank you for making me consider not contributing any further to this article. Without any reasons, I will likely report your conduct to an admin. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And you guys have really screwed things up with the page moving. To move a page, you don't just start an article under a new name and copy the contents from another article there. You have to move the page. Now we have two separate titles with two distinct revision histories. Now I have to figure out how to merge them back together. It isn't a trivial thing; see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Repair process (for admins). ~Amatulić (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Henry, I have opened up a discussion above about the changes that you want to make. I have not violated any Wikipedia policies by reverting your changes one time -- this is all part of the WP:BRD process. I'm sorry if I in any way offended you. NJ Wine (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have completed merging the histories of the two articles. In the future, if you want to move an article to a new article title, DO NOT simply copy and paste content from one to the other. Do a move. My understanding is that there are legal reasons for preserving the editing history for a single article, so we must strive to keep the editing history in one place.

If you can't do a move because there's a redirect in the way, ask an admin to do the move or delete the redirect.

Please look at the content to be sure the current revision is the correct one. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Amatulic -- I clicked the "move" box above, I didn't cut and paste. However, sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused if I was incorrect in the method of moving. I thought the button above would be sufficient. Please be advised that I will not be contributing anymore to this article because of User:NJ Wine. This is the reason I left WP years ago. I truly hate people who own articles. This article will remain a sloppy mess because any constructive work to fix the shortcomings of the article will ultimately (if not immediately) be reverted by the article's putative "owner." I don't like wasting my time. This will be my last post here. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Linkfarm cleaned

Per the discussion above, I cleaned up the linkfarm. I think we can all agree that the list itself is useful, but there is no reason to keep a WP:LINKFARM, and there is nothing wrong with having a list full of red wikilinks (as many other lists on Wikipedia do), since this list imparts other useful information.

NJ Wine restored the links. I removed them again. See WP:ELNO for guidance. NJ Wine, instead of simply restoring them, you have a WP:BURDEN of presenting a compelling reason to include them. Our policies and guidelines don't support maintaining linkfarms as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. It's a little bit vague, but crtiterion 5 of WP:ELNO may prohibit these links. I will not restore them. NJ Wine (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Each of those links would be fine in an individual articles about the winery or brewery. They just aren't suitable for a list.

I have no knowledge of wineries and breweries in NJ, but surely there must be more establishments notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article than the handful that show up in this list? I'm sure many won't ever achieve the required level of notability, but I have to believe that there are more in this list that do. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A decent percentage of the wineries and a handful of the breweries are probably notable. I think it's just the case the nobody has created an article for them yet. NJ Wine (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Or they will become notable as the industry and product improve. Heck, recently New Jersey wines beat out or matched finer French wines. Google "Judgment of Princeton".ColonelHenry (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to Google for that. We have an article on it: Judgment of Princeton. However, that article explains that (a) a French wine was the winner, and (b) the rankings of the wines from #2 onwards has no statistical relevance, so one can't say definitively that one wine "beat" another in that list, although it is interesting that relatively unknown NJ wines were judged as comparable. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading the Wikipedia article was a major bummer. The media and the GSWGA have been making a mountain out of a molehill on this one.ColonelHenry (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List or Table??

Would it be better to create a table for this list to convey more information. For example, a winery table columns would go as...Winery Name | Location | AVA? | type of wines produced

• Would listing the wine varietals/blends produced violate the list policy or some anti-commercial list policy?
• For smaller scale wineries, the TTB and state ag dept. doesnt require reporting capacity or production numbers. So I didn't propose adding that as a column.

So, list or table?--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I previously considered adding yearly production, but for many of the wineries the information is not publically available. The wines being produced change routinely, and so I would be reluctant to include that info. Not all the wineries are in an AVA area so I don';t think we should include that. What we could include is the year that they opened. I don't care if it is in list or table format. NJ Wine (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My view is, if there is any relevant quantitative or grouping information that is useful for sorting the list, then a table is appropriate because a table can be set to sort by columns. Otherwise, just keep it as a list. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Annoying list

This long list of non-notable companies reads like advertising. It should be trimmed down to only those companies with articles in Wikipedia which have been proved to be notable. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; this would be in keeping with the most common criterion for stand-alone lists specified by our Manual of Style: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." As it stands most of the red-linked entries currently in the list do not appear to be individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

69.62.243.48 and Psychonaut, I believe that a certain percentage of these wineries and breweries may be notable, even if they do not have there own article yet. However, they do not need to be notable to include them on this list. WP:LISTCOMPANY states: A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. NJ Wine (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I know they don't need to be notable under some list criteria. But under the most common one, entries ought to be notable, and I see no reason why this list shouldn't use those criteria. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Psychonaut, NJ Wine and you are talking about the same MOS page. It clearly states that companies do not need an article to be included in a list of companies if they are a member of that list. If you disagree, I suggest that you request a change to the Manual of Style. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Half the point of most lists is that the subjects aren't independently notable, but the information is proper to include in a single page, so a list is used. That's the point of what LISTCOMPANY says. They do not have to have their own article to be included. Silverseren^C 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The list of wineries and breweries in New Jersey is a topic that is easily defined and quantified. For example, we know that there are exactly 41 active wineries in the state. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to list all of them. I believe that we should write articles for the benefit of readers, and if you tell a reader that there are 41 wineries, the reader would want to see a list of all 41 of them, and not just say 10 of them. NJ Wine (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In this list it's appropriate and manageable to list all the wineries. Other lists require reliably sourced entries or notability for each entry. List of twelve-step groups and list of common misconceptions are examples that list only notable things, not all possible things, because listing them all would be unmanageable and rather pointless.

There's also a matter of scale. For example, List of wineries in California would be similarly unmanageable and pointless. Unlike New Jersey with its 41 wineries, California has nearly twice that many wine-producing regions that include thousands of wineries, and listing them all would definitely violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For California, just having the notable ones in Category:California wineries is more appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

BATF-TTB registers 43 licensed/operating wineries. Please check your facts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Er... the fact is that this article lists 41 wineries. Please assume good faith that those participating here are assuming (incorrectly) that this list is comprehensive. If there are actually 43, then by all means add the missing ones. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

BATF-TTB which federally licenses wineries and the USDA has in their lists two wineries not here (I am not including licensed wine blenders...which would make the list approach somewhere around 60-65). I also think that Rutgers, the state agricultural extension service is likely more correct that NJ Wine regarding the count. See: http://njsustainingfarms.rutgers.edu/winegrapes.html Sangre del Romana Winery in Hampton Twsp., Sussex County. There's a second in the county similarly licensed and waiting zoning approval for the tasting room/retail space, but I have to sort through the list. I don't contribute here anymore. NJ Wine can rule over his private little kingdom and I couldn't care less anymore. should I receive an apology and be allowed to edit and contribute without having my contributions scrapped by our local despot, I might consider returning. Right now, nope. I assume good faith, until someone tells me to check my facts but hypocritically doesn't check his own. I assume good faith until someone reverts for cheap reasons. Shall I continue....no, I'm wasting my breath. (metaphorically).--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I might be back sooner than I though, User:NJ Wine was blocked from editing due to sockpuppetry. See his user page. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by Amatulic's argument and withdraw my objection. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Move back to List of Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey?

After Amatulic's and other editors clean up efforts this article appears to be in much better shape. However, it does seem to be misplaced under the current title since it is, indeed, a WP:LIST. Now I haven't caught up on all the drama but it looks like only one editor who has since been blocked for sock puppetry was the sole objector to moving this article to a normal title. And, admittedly, NJ Wine's reason for objecting to the title change wasn't really clear. Is there anyone else who objects? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved it, but not to the previous title which had a different ordering of the words wineries, breweries, and distilleries. And it should be "in" not "of" like we have for other "List of wineries in..." articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My rational for the previous renaming's word order breweries, wineries, and distilleries because typically the order is "beer, wine, and liquor". I like what you've done so far.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the ordering should correspond to population of establishments as well as the structure of the article, so I put wineries first and distilleries last. It isn't a problem to rename it to something else, although I think the ordering shouldn't matter. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Fox1942 (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Red links for non-notable list entries

What is the consensus about all the red links? Here is what I think is a relevant quote from the end of Wikipedia:List article#Common selection criteria:

"Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace. Write these in your userspace, or in a Wikiproject's space, or list the missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

I understand that this is not a creation guide per se but many/most of the establishments listed are not notable and I don't think they should be links (red or not) unless we can make a case for their notability. Jojalozzo 20:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See the #Linkfarm cleaned section above. I view the red links as a compromise between the June version of this article (where EVERY entry was an external link violating WP:LINKFARM) and having no links at all except for one or two wikilinks.

I think listing all establishments has encyclopedic value but I do agree that most will never be notable enough for an article. Which ones those are has not been determined, so they're all redlinked for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose we remove the links except for those that have articles. "Having no links at all except a few wikilinks" is how it should have been from the start. I don't think the fact that we started with a link farm means we have to accept a poor quality article. Jojalozzo 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose What is included in the list is clearly defined and all of the red links are ones that can be made into articles themselves, which is why it is fine to include them as red links in this list. Silverseren^C 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:CLS. That guideline doesn't recommend eliminating red links. In fact, it encourages their use as reminders for later gap-filling. I see no policy argument for removing the red links. If articles are written on any of these establishments, their links will turn blue. Just because you and I find red links unattractive is not a reason to remove them.

If you de-link them, you reduce the value of Wikipedia by preventing inter-wiki links from occurring when articles do get written, and the authors of such article may not know about this list and re-link it. Therefore, it is best that they remain red links. If you can offer a foolproof way to determine which establishments on this list will be or will never be notable, so that their red links can be kept or cleared, then by all means do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLS is about using a list article to group existing articles, i.e. blue links not red links. Wikipedia:List article covers stand alone lists like this one and clearly states that "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace". Jojalozzo 01:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're a little off base here as the list policies allow this type of article. A little history (because I was there): the policy regarding redlinks on lists started several years ago because of a discussion about a list of wars that America was involved in. The list was sloppy. It was a huge list and not well organized and a lot of people said "whoa, those Americans are belligerent" but then a few people thought the list wasn't worthy of an encyclopedia article and mentioned AfD. The thought was that since the articles weren't there, the list shouldn't be either. But then, cooler heads prevailed and eventually a consensus was reached. The conclusion was that eventually editors will write articles for each war and the list will serve its purpose later but with the additional benefit of providing the seeds that could start an editing project. By putting up a list, it allowed people to see what needed to be added and addressed. While some of these businesses may never be notable enough for an article, the potential is there, and the policy is designed with this in mind. The policy seeks to be inclusive in that "someday there might be articles" and the list might cause someone to start writing them if/when they become notable enough. I would oppose any attempt to sanitize this list by removing redlinks or delisting. Amatulic is correct in his assessment (sorry if by assuming the masculine gender I might be incorrect).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you mean by "this type of article" a list of primarily non-notable items with wikilinks for all of them, then I disagree with your interpretation of policy. I don't think anyone would dispute that wars are notable and red links for them make some sense, but I doubt many would agree that all the wineries and breweries in New Jersey are ever going to get their own articles. List policy is clear that a list composed of a raft of redlinks "does not belong in main namespace". Remove the red links and let it stand on its own. Jojalozzo 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• My two cents While I agree that redlinks are useful, that usefulness only exists if there is a potential for an article to actually be created. As the second line of WP:REDLINK notes (emphasis added) "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." If we don't have a reasonable assumption that the topic is notable and verifiable then we shouldn't have a redlink.
  Now, of course, if we remove all the redlinks then what is the purpose of this article and does it fulfills any of the three main purposes for list--Information, Navigation and Development? The second two only come into play if there are, indeed, more than a couple of wineries notable enough to merit articles being created. The first purpose is, IMO, debatable with these kinds of list and we have to balance between this being a WP:DIRECTORY list or something that an external link at New Jersey wine would be more appropriate to cover. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am leaning towards AFD at this point but I think a list of notable wineries and breweries would be helpful for all three purposes. That would mean deleting any items for which notability cannot be established but would allow for newly notable items to be added. Jojalozzo 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misguided and deletionist. Without an entire list, the argument then would end up that the list had become advertising and for a few "selected" businesses. Right now, it's helpful for all three. It focuses what needs to be/may be developed in the future, it lays the groundwork for efficient navigation, and it is informational. Considering the industry in NJ is growing, and gaining recognition (as compared to California and Europe) some of these wineries would gain notability and warrant an article in the near future. Others might never be notable. That's for slaughterbench of history to determine. But the list as it stands is the better of currently possible options. It wouldn't hurt you to possibly take a few moments to write one of the articles currently redlinked and look into the matter. No, you'd rather delete delete delete and likely only maintain a superficial understanding of the subject matter. If you AFDed the article, based on comments here 3 keep, 1 delete, 1 maybe delete. Based on that (and knowing we'd drum up sympathizers), it would be a futile waste of everyone's time. Why not focus on deleting comparatively more useless Pokemon articles? --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of content in the introduction, a better idea would be to remove "List of" from the title and have a section for notable wineries and one for notable breweries. Jojalozzo 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Personally, I would prefer the history material was moved elsewhere--articles New Jersey wine (where there is similar history material now), NJ beer industry (not yet existing), and an article on Laird (since they are notable enough for an article, George Washington asked them for their applejack recipe)--and that this be the true list is should be. That's why I sectioned the history stuff off from the much-needed lede...in the hopes that we could figure out what to do moving forward and make a better list, article, and move away from the hybrid it is now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: article at Laird & Company --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was no article for Laird yet - glad to see it sorted out.

Merging everything into existing articles (and creating New Jersey beer) is another good option. I think the alcoholic beverage connection tying this list together is a stretch. Jojalozzo 17:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Partial merge--only the historical info at this point. Perhaps we can put together a beer article today or tomorrow. Even if it's a stub (like Laird), it's a start. The list stuff should stay in a list. Like a little wikiproject in that it helps us direct our future work. Sure, we can have free standing "List of wineries in New Jersey", "List of breweries and brewpubs in New Jersey", but then we'd ended up with an absurd title of "List of distillery in New Jersey" since there's only currently one (once the microdistillery industry is fostered through new laws, that might change). (can we have a list of one? or two? how many minimum for a "list"?) The title of this article is a little cumbersome, IMO, and should be renamed but I don't see any other options more workable than the current title at this time (though would endorse a split if conditions warrant down the road). Is there an article on the alcoholic beverage production in NJ -- would one be warranted? The wine and bear industry is small enough (compared to California or New York) that this list is managable, at this time. If the industry explodes (there are many factors that delay this) with hundreds of wineries, this list can become unmanagable. I'm for this list existing and continuing to exist because I lead toward being a WP inclusionist. But I will readily admit it can be and should be better, and that something needs to be organized for future management issues.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think this is an inclusionist/deletionist issue (I personally loathe the terms). I don't think anyone is trying to blanket delete anything but rather find the best medium to the present the information (which doesn't always have to be an article of redlinks that may likely never be blue). For one, an external link to the State of New Jersey's page listing all the wineries in the state on the New Jersey wine page would provide our readers with every bit of winery information that this list provides (and more considering it is a directory with phone numbers and addresses). I fail to see any benefit that having a redlink list has over this EL especially when we don't have a reasonable assumption that any of these wineries will achieve notability and verifiability to warrant an article. It's like having a List of bands from Salem, New Jersey article populated with mostly redlink "garage bands" and arguing for its to stay because someday those bands might be famous enough to warrant an article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also: I agree that it creating a New Jersey beer article is a really good idea and I'm kinda surprised that the folks at WP:BEER hasn't created state-by-state beer articles yet. Maybe we should drop them a link to this discussion? As for the microdistillery, it probably is worthwhile to add a paragraph about the alcohol industry to the main New Jersey article in the New_Jersey#Industries section. That could include mention of the state's only microdistillery. As I said before, I don't see this as a inclusionist/deletionist issue. Its clear that we can find a better way to present this info to our readers (the content merge, the NJ wine EL, a NJ beer article with a similar EL, the paragraph in the main NJ article, etc) that doesn't require us keeping a mostly useless list of red links. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So you would rather take this hybrid article-list and kill it, but make two article-list hybrids out of NJ Wine and a future NJ Beer? That's a little "six of one, half-dozen of another." What's the solution when the list goes from 40 to 400? I see your point about potential abuse/uselessness of "List of Bands in Salem County, New Jersey" but I see this more along the lines of "List of English Monarchs" where eventually articles about each individual king and queen emerge...even minor ones that no one cares about...like Offa of Mercia. As for hybrid article-lists, I see it like lists of alumni or "people who lived in X" that were included on college articles or hometown articles. The list ends up distracting from the article. I oppose adding lists to articles when a stand-alone list or two stand-alone lists (List of wineries in X, list of breweries in X) would be better (as is, I assert, the case here) and still in keeping with the policies indicated and applied by Amatulic above. Let the beer people know, I think there should be a system like there is for state-by-state wine articles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not advocating killing anything nor am I advocating "hybrids". Rather, I'm advocating having NJ wine and beer articles built around reliable sources that may mention certain NJ wineries and breweries that can be included in the text as red links (For example, check out the history section of the Washington wine article). That "in-context" usage of redlinks (as opposed to a list) would at least give us reasonable assumption of the notability and future article potential (and is the proper use of redlinks per WP:REDLINK). Plus, our readers are undoubtedly better served with actual information and context about how these wineries/breweries fit into and contribute to the New Jersey wine/beer industries instead of just a directory of red links. But I do think an WP:EL going to the state of New Jersey page with an actual directory of all wineries is a worthwhile link and would, again, be a better vehicle for providing this type of information to our readers---much, MUCH better than what this redlink list is currently doing.

And my garage band comparison is WAY more apt of a parallel then List of English Monarchs because monarchs are by their very nature notable just for being monarchs. That is certainly not the case with wineries which are frankly not that dissimilar from restaurants. We can make another analogy to having List of pizza restaurants in Paramus, New Jersey. Which is better? Keeping such a list and its accompanying redlinks under the assumption that someday a few of these pizza places might get notable enough to merit an article or rather finding reliable sources that talk about the pizza industry in Paramus and adding a referenced section of text to the main Paramus article under a section like "Cuisine" that may include redlinks to notable pizzerias (such as the first to open or ones that were notable for other reasons)? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Analogy or not, you haven't defeated the fact that policy allows this kind of list. WP:EL isn't th controlling policy here, WP:CLS is and it allows this type of list because of the potential for future development. A reasonable expectation of future notability is met with the claim that the industry is growing and becoming better recognized (tremendously in the last five years)--and riding on those coattails, some wineries will too as they are part of the growth and recognition. Judgment of Princeton can be the beginning of an explosion for the NJ wine industry and raise several of these businesses to notability (many already have won medals at international festivals and might be notable already). Besides, there are great pizzerias in Paramus, but better ones in Paterson and Clifton.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Consensus (argue it out)

It's probably in the best interests of this discussion to achieve a consensus and move forward. I propose this:

• Articles: New Jersey wine, New Jersey beer, New Jersey spirits or New Jersey distilleries (or something of the sort when we get more than 2 or 3--since more will come as legislation opens opportunity)
• Lists: List of wineries in New Jersey, List of breweries and brewpubs in New Jersey, List of distilleries in New Jersey (if in the rare chance we get 10 or more)

Accept a redlink list under the premise that some articles (probably not all) will be written within the next year or two. As the wine/microbrewery/microdistillery industry grows and gets noticed, so will recognition and notability grow. There will be a direct and proportional correlation. For now, since there's one distillery company, just leave well enough alone with Laird & Company. If there's a second, they might deserve an article. If a few pop up, we'll write an industry article. For the time being, so it doesn't get lost, mention Laird's in a fruit wine section on New Jersey wine since Apple Jack starts with a fermented apple wine.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I need to point out one fatal flaw. You've stated "As the wine/microbrewery/microdistillery industry grows and gets noticed, so will recognition and notability grow." a couple times now and seem to almost assume this as a de facto inevitability that notability is going to come but it really isn't. Major wine industries in major regions with decades, if not hundreds of years of experience and growth often do not have more than a handful of wineries that can be considered notable. Like I said, wineries aren't that different than restaurants and just as very few restaurants become notable, so too do very few wineries become notable. This is just as true in Napa Valley, Barossa Valley, Loire Valley, Tuscany as it is in New Jersey. You can't assume that notability is going to come just because these are wineries because wineries are not inherently notable just by themselves. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Red links help wikipedia grow. Policy states this, studies state this. Eradicating red links then, would stunt wikipedia's growth. You can assume and extrapolate by seeing current trends and forecasting growth--it's the entire basis for Wall Street. Lehman Brothers was once a gew guys operating out of a basement, so was Metallica from a garage. Look at the industry trends, see revenue and production stats, see the competition medals, and you can see where it ends up. Reasonable expectation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The more we argue minutiae and "what if", the less time we edit. We're stunting wikipedia's growth. Be the change that you want and let things live. Let's stop talking about it and start to make it happen. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As WP:REDLINK points out, redlinks for topics that are notable and verifiable help Wikipedia grow. How does a list show us or (more importantly) the reader that this redlink is about a topic that will someday merit an article? Now compare that with a section of text, backed by reliable sources (like in the Washington wine article), that includes redlinks? That offers the readers so much more and gives the rest of Wikipedia a far more reasonable assumption that (per WP:REDLINK) the redlink is there because "a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." It tells the reader that there IS more to the story because it actually provides a context to the story. This is not "killing Wikipedia", this is about actually providing information for our readers rather than just a useless list of redlinks.

And, yes, I do agree that we need a break from talking. I'm currently working on an article about the role of Oxygen in winemaking that I hope to get finished by the end of the week and need to return to. I've stated my view and dropped a note at WP:BEER to get the beer folks' thoughts. I'm content to wait to see what other opinions offer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you use WP:EL to its absurd conclusion, everything on wikipedia can be addressed offsite. Then what's the point of WP? Redlinks are inclusionist. Removing redlinks is indirectly deletionist. I will always side on inclusion. Spend the time better by writing an article rather than cursing and heaping calumnies upon the redlink. the two us alone can make this redlinked list blue in a month. I already created one today and made one of these redlinks blue--I feel better for it. In the end, a few 15 Kb stubs isn't going to hurt Wikipedia--as all the county and town links have established. Remember Walpack Township, New Jersey and Tavistock, New Jersey and a few thousand other towns are only important to a few dozen people. But yet they have articles--and just because they appear on a map. We could do worse than a few winery articles and a worthwhile list with a few more red links than blue. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My compromise proposal: what the Colonel suggests except we only accept redlinks for establishments that are reasonably likely to have articles written about them in the next year or two. Jojalozzo 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, challenge me and I'll write 70 stubs in one night.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, really. Then let the notability process sort it out. Jojalozzo 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, I asked you before indirectly, so I'll ask again more directly: How would you propose determining which establishments are "reasonably likely" to have articles written about them? Red links do no harm. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Colonel's idea of creating stubs and see what flies is one option. Or we can spend the time everyone appears to be avoiding actually looking at each of these establishments to see if they've got awards or recognition other than having their press releases published. We can split up the list among us and do due diligence instead of discussing it here. Jojalozzo 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

However, if you exclude establishments to the benefit of those included, you risk turning a list into an advertisement or a wine guide. Thin ice. Better to include all and see what sticks. I'm not averse to writing 70 stubs for breweries/pubs and wineries like the 2 paragraphs I scrapped together for Laird & Company. It probably would take 24 hours in web research, book, magazine, newspapers, and wine guide research. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, I take a dim view of someone experimentally submitting 70 articles to "see what sticks". If the majority of them will be speedily deleted, all you're doing is creating extra unnecessary work for other editors and admins to mop up.

I think it would be far better to catalog the reliable sources pertaining to each winery, here on this talk page, for others to review and come to consensus over which ones would stick if a stub were created. Along with those, you could also describe what, if anything, makes the establishment unique.

Keep in mind also that a stub can survive speedy deletion if it makes some claim of notability even if that claim is unsourced (such as "the only distillery in New Jersey" or "the oldest winery in New Jersey" or "the largest winery in New Jersey" or "is a historic landmark" or "is the only winery in the Easter United States that makes wine from ragweed" or "produced one of the top ten wines in XXX international competition" or some similar claim of uniqueness), and if such a claim is sourced, it might even survive AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we could work on expanding New Jersey wine and creating the New Jersey beer article with reliable sources first. Any wineries and breweries mentioned in those sources would likely be relevant to the history and development of the New Jersey wine/beer industry and their inclusion in the article would be very useful and appropriate WP:REDLINKs. Now, obviously there won't be 70 links in these two articles because obviously there are not 70 notable wineries and breweries in New Jersey. But the ones mentioned in the reliable sources as important to the New Jersey wine and beer industries should undoubtedly be the first place we look for in determining what articles are going "to stick". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey beer

I created New Jersey beer as a redirect to Beer and breweries in New Jersey. Currently, a one sentence stub that will likely be expanded in short order. Does anyone know the reasons behind formatting the name New Jersey wine as the norm? --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a long standing convention for articles about a region's wine industry to have the format '[Region name] wine'. Alternative names I can think of, such as Wine of Cyprus or Wine of Michigan are redirects. Why? What's wrong with New Jersey wine? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't have that "zing" you would expect from the article title. I'm in the camp that article titles should give a better idea of the scope of the article and I don't get much out of New Jersey wine. The word wine seems secondary, a useless appendage like a vestigial tail. Also, just because it's a long-standing convention it is not necessarily the best option...for instance: using horses after the introduction of cars, or mules after tractors, slavery, the Romanovs or the Bourbons, cro-magnon man, humanoids without opposable thumbs, and a million other ideas that had better alternatives. Was it adopted for lack of a better alternative at the time? Also, it seems other projects have differing standards. With beverages, there should be one set standard. WP Beer has differing standards (X Beer, Beer in X, Beer and brewereies in X) IMHO Wine and wineries in New Jersey, or Wine industry in New Jersey (but that open the door to including industrial blenders and liquor stores) seems better. Considering a large percentage of NJ wine isn't made with NJ grapes, it seems a little bit of false advertising. Too many issues emerge when we scratch the surface. What were the reasons for this format? --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning lies in the guideline WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. If I want to learn about wine in New Jersey, I'm going to look for an article called New Jersey wine because I wouldn't know that NJ wine is often made from non-NJ grapes, and neither would most other reader. I would expect such an article to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic, including more specific subtopics like the industry, notable wineries, etc.

The title New Jersey wine meets all five criteria in the guideline: It is recognizable to anyone, it is natural for readers to search for that title, it is precise enough without being overly precise, it is concise, and it is consistent with other similar articles. Alternative titles that you suggest above may be more precise, but they fail one or more other criteria by being less recognizable, less natural, less concise, or inconsistent. Those titles can certainly exist for those who might search for them; that is why we have redirects such as the two examples in my previous reply. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with your assessment of an option's not meeting the other criteria despite being more precise. First, you conveniently ignore that the statement on this MOS guideline that "It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others" can be applied to precision as well as any other criteria. I would assert that it is more important to err on the side of precision. Then, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA are goals, not rules. I would debate whether New Jersey wine is sufficiently precise when "Wine and Wineries in New Jersey" would be more precise without being overly so. I would doubt that New Jersey wine is the most recognizeable or the most natural option either. My first searches for the topic were for "new jersey wineries" and "wineries in new jersey" not "New Jersey wine." Besides, as we type, the search bar recommends. The claims of naturalness are undermined by the programming and the fact that the variety of options available will always be inherently unpredictable and reader-subjective. I don't think the other option violates concision rules. I will continue to assert the standard of "(Location) wine" (Michigan wine, New Jersey wine, etc.) should be changed to a consistent, more precise standard. Inconsistency is all over wikipedia. Resolving matters of inconsistency vis-a-vis converting to a better option is only a matter of will and time to do so (a bot could be employed). If any article are named, all articles should be renamed. But along these lines, I think the current "standard" suffers from its lack of precision and from banality.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The "XXX wine" format for regional articles is preferable for all of the reasons that Amatulic has noted--not the least of which is is it conciseness and consistency with other wine articles. If we change this article, we create internal inconsistency and would then need 100+ other articles changed which seems kind of foolish to do for no good reason. As an added benefit of the "XXX wine" format is the ease of wiki linking with other articles which often include descriptions of "So and So Cellars is a New Jersey winery", "John Smith is a New Jersey winemaker", and "Freisa is a red Italian wine grape variety". While, yes we could still do all this with redirects, I again doubt the point of changing the title when the more concise and natural redirect is going to be the most useful and used link. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, has been noted before, as very, very few wineries are notable, changing a region article to "Wines and Wineries in XXX" would certainly not be more precise as the mention of notable wineries would likely take up less then 5% (if that) of most regional wine articles. This is a huge difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:WINEGUIDE that you would expect to have little blurbs about all the wineries in a region. An encyclopedia is dedicated more to covering the history, geography, climate, viticultural and winemaking specifics and so "XXX wine" is undoubtedly more precise. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess we should move Geology of New Jersey to New Jersey rocks, and Geography of New Jersey to New Jersey maps since that's the option exhibiting more concision and precision? The reduction to the absurd. Wine (the beverage) and Wineries (the industry and production) is not wineguiding. It's a more precise identification/definition/explanation of the industry.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the analogous moves would be to New Jersey geology and New Jersey geography which are more concise and possibly improvements over the existing titles. I think New Jersey wine and wineries would be a fine title. Jojalozzo 23:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But we're not a WP:WINEGUIDE and that article is about the New Jersey wine industry and not necessarily about the wineries themselves. That's like saying an article on a regional cuisine should be titled something like New Jersey cuisine and restaurants. While notable New Jersey wineries who have made some significant contribution to the New Jersey wine industry (such as the first bonded winery, winner of a major international award or some other noteworthy relevance) should be mentioned in the article, outside of maybe a sourced comment about the number of wineries in the state and maybe applicable wine laws there really isn't much details about wineries to be included. Again, details about individual wineries are better left to commercial wine guides instead of an encyclopedia article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Beer Project have this guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (breweries), which follows related guidelines and general consensus that information should first be placed in a parent article and when there is sufficient material for a standalone article, should be split out in summary style. See Size, Split, Merge, Notability and Not. The guideline suggests that local breweries are mentioned first in local articles per Local, UK Economy, Settlement Economy, and USA Economy, and when large enough should be split out per WP:Summary style. It is suggested that groupings of breweries can be dealt with in a regional article. These are titled Beer in Foo, - and the main article is at Beer and breweries by region. The USA parent article is Beer in the United States. There are some regional articles such as Beer in Alabama, so New Jersey beer falls within the structure already created, though should be renamed Beer in New Jersey. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial notability scan

I ran all the breweries through quick google search and found some that have at least one source that possibly could support an article. I added sources for those with at least one of the following

• Non-local media attention focused on brewing not restaurant in general
• Recent national brewing festival award (mainly GABF)

As opposed to wineries, most microbreweries are associated with restaurants. Some of them might be notable solely as restaurants but I didn't take that into account. Really almost none of these places are very notable, even the one's that got a review by a non-local newspaper - they're all mainly restaurants that make beer. Jojalozzo 02:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While working on this I found Category:Beer brewing companies based in New Jersey which had a few of the breweries we had listed with different titles plus one we didn't have. They were all orphans and most have either no references or just refs to their web sites. Jojalozzo 02:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The notable entries in the beer list are breweries. The rest are brew pubs, i.e. restaurants that make beer. I propose we remove the redlinks for brew pubs that do not have sources to establish notability. Jojalozzo 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions: I think (but have to check) that it's a fluke in NJ liquor laws, microbreweries are required to be a brew pub by their licensure and tax structure. What if these brew pubs have won medals and awards at notable industry and international beer competitions? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure microbreweries probably have to be restaurants but they are still just small potatoes and need secondary sources to achieve notability. A real brewery that distributes regionally is going to have those sources. The others are just brew pubs, i.e. restaurants that make beer, and notability is harder to come by. As I said above, I added sources for brewers who won a recent major award(last 2 or 3 years), e.g. Iron Hill. Jojalozzo 01:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Microbreweries in NJ do not need to be brewpubs or restaurants. Many of them, such as Flying Fish or Climax, are just breweries. Here's the breakdown. 71.251.34.55 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Anheuser-Busch - commercial brewery
• Artisan`s Brewery & Italian Grill - brewpub
• Basil T's Brewpub and Italian Grill - brewpub
• Cape May Brewing - microbrewery
• Carton Brewing - microbrewery
• Climax Brewing Company - microbrewery
• Cricket Hill - microbrewery
• Egan & Sons - brewpub
• Flying Fish Brewing
• Gaslight Brewery and Restaurant - brewpub
• Harvest Moon Brewery Cafe - brewpub
• High Point Brewing Company - microbrewery
• Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant - brewpub
• J.J. Bitting Brewing - brewpub
• Kane Brewing - microbrewery
• Kroghs Restaurant and Brewpub - brewpub
• Long Valley Pub and Brewery - brewpub
• New Jersey Beer Company - microbrewery
• River Horse Brewery - microbrewery
• Ship Inn - brewpub
• Trap Rock Restaurant and Brewery - brewpub
• Triumph Brewing - brewpub
• Tuckahoe Brewing - microbrewery
• Turtle Stone Brewing - microbrewery
• Uno Chicago Grill and Brewery - brewpub
• Note: Some in the the craft beer community do not consider Egan and Sons to be a real brewery because half the brewing process is done at Cricket Hill.

That's very helpful. Do you have an opinion about the utility of keeping brewpubs in the list, especially those with no recent brewing awards and no non-local press coverage? Jojalozzo 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, wait until a few of the article's contributors show up to join in the consensus. But I see the anon editor's point as well as yours. However, I'd like a little more solid ground on what creates the difference--what flukes in the law, for example (which I'm currently researching...because NJ does enforce strange, quirky licensure laws). Before we jump in another direction, I think we should consider our options and the source material. Secondly, since Brewpubs are a phenomenon within microbrewing, why not break the list into sublists of (1) major national/regional breweries, (2) microbreweries, and (3) brewpubs? There are other options that are more inclusionist. I lean towards inclusionism rather than deletionism. I'm not entirely convinced that this redlinked list is violating any MOS or project guideline. In fact, I assert this list is in keeping with the spirit of MOS list policies. I'm not entirely convinced that anything has to be "removed" based on a reading of notability policy because I'm inclined to notice that the list policies are more likely to countermand and supercede notability concerns in this instance. Too bad, we are deating yet another instance of WP's policies being contradictory and leading to no clear, decisively certain course of action.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I thought this list should have been made a table (an option that was shot down above without a decent reason, IMHO) that gave information about AVA and production for the wineries. I'd like to see this list discuss production stats/information and be more informative.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  More information would be great but we need reliable sources for that. From my review of the beer list, there are few entries that have more support than their own web sites. I think it is clear that policy does not allow content unless it is supported by reliable sources. Jojalozzo 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm of the belief that we should keep the redlinks for both the microbreweries and the brewpubs. The brewpubs are not necessarily less notable than the microbreweries. Some of them (e.g., J.J. Bitting, Harvest Moon, Triumph) have existed for a number of years, and you could easily find independent sources covering them. I agree with Colonel Henry that there is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting the existence of a list with redlinks. 71.251.34.55 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Notability requires reliable sources. Breweries are much more likely to be notable because they distribute their products more widely and are more likely to get notice in larger media outlets. I agree that a brewpub could be notable if it is well known and has reviews written about it in reliable sources, not just the local press. My concerns is that most of the brewpubs have no sources other than their web sites or a mention in the local newspaper.

  As to policy about redlinks in list articles: I have posted this info here more than once. It is the policy from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria:

  ...lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace...

  This is policy that governs list articles such as this one. I don't know what could be clearer or what the basis is for claims that no such policy exists.

  There is also this guidance also from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria:

  Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.

  I think this policy also applies here and suggests we remove the brackets around entries that are not notable (i.e. don't have reliable sources to lead us to expect an article in the future).

  NOTE: I am not saying we should remove redlink entries if we do not expect to have an article about them. I am saying we should remove the brackets around them so they are just plain text. The link can be replaced if an article is ever created. Jojalozzo 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I could accept debracketing until sometime in the future an article could warrant a re-linking. Removal though, I would object.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  I apologize if I wasn't clear. I probably did propose removing entries at some point but I now realize that list articles are allowed to have non-notable entries as long as the list topic itself is notable (as this one certainly is). I think it will improve the article if we only have a few red links where we really think there should be an article soon and the rest of the entries that do not have articles are just text. Jojalozzo 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I think the article would look better without all the red links, I wonder if by removing them, it makes it less likely that articles will be created for the wineries and breweries. Also, if someone creates an article for a New Jersey winery or brewery without knowing about this list, the red link will still turn blue. Without the red links, a person could create an article, and the article would not be linked to this list. Just something to think about. Out of curiousity, what would be the criteria for separating the wineries and breweries which are red linked, and the ones that are not? 71.251.38.120 (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is the quandary, my anonymous associate. Redlinks that might not become articles kept in the hopes that they become articles. But it we de-link them, will anyone think of creating an article? I don't see any reason to even delink them, but considering it's only four keystrokes to reverse course, I could care less. Criteria hasn't been fleshed out--we've mentioned awards, non-local coverage, bare minimum standards of notability, relative hopes of becoming article. nothing final. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Because every entry in the list was linked, it does not appear that much if any consideration was given to the reasonableness of any of them having an article created about them. Instead it seems the easy way was taken, and is being argued for still, on the unresearched possibility that articles may be written sometime. Policy tells us not to link terms unless there is a reasonable chance an article will be written. I have reviewed some of the brewery entries to see if there are any reliable sources that might indicate their notability for a future article. The ones for which I could not find sources I marked with a cn tag. I think they are ripe candidates for being delinked. I suspect most of the wineries will have reliable sources but most of the beer list entries are restaurants that make beer, have no sources other than their own web site and brief mention in local news, so they're unlikely to get articles written about them. Jojalozzo 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, I have to disagree with your assessment of notability. Some New Jersey brewpubs are highly notable, and some are less notable. Likewise, some New Jersey wineries are quite notable, and some are not. I have attached articles, from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Star Ledger, and New Jersey Monthly, which support the notability of various brewpubs in the state. 71.251.33.34 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/06dinenj.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionspecial2&oref=slogin
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536340355129022.html?mod=slideshow_overlay_mod
• http://blog.nj.com/artful_diner/2009/01/kroghs_restaurant_brew_pub_rev.html
• http://njmonthly.com/articles/restaurants/restaurantreviews/beer-here.html

I have added a reliable source for every microbrewery and brewpub that doesn't have its own article. 71.251.33.34 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cape May article from Atlantic City Press is a good find which might support articles for three more of the list entries - it would be good to have a little more than a general article about brew pubs as evidence that a specific place is notable. I agree that if we can find sources to show notability then we should keep the terms linked. I am glad someone is working on this to establish a real basis for notability. My problem has been that no one wanted to do the work to decide which were notable and which weren't.

However, I don't consider a list of all the brew pubs at the end of the NYT article (which accounts for 8 sources) sufficient support for notability. As I understand it, notability requires an article about the brew pub, not one about brew pubs in general plus a list. Likewise, mention on a NJ craft beer web site is also insufficient since again it's a site that lists every place that makes beer, notable or not. We're looking for reliable sources that establish notability not just any mention anywhere. Jojalozzo 02:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Future of this article (OCT2012)

Another editor removed the list of breweries/brewpubs from the article and created List of breweries in New Jersey. Today, I removed the wineries and created List of wineries in New Jersey. This leaves this list rather superfluous. Would it be best to create this into a general Production of alcoholic beverages in New Jersey which covers wines, beers and liquors in a general sense. If there's a better title (like Alcohol production in New Jersey or Alcoholic beverage industry in New Jersey. The general production/industry article would then incorporate the NJ Alcohol laws article. It would be the general lead of a small niche of articles like this:

• Production of alcoholic beverages in New Jersey

• New Jersey wine

• Judgment of Princeton
• the three NJ AVA articles
• notable winery articles.

• List of wineries in New Jersey
• Beer in New Jersey

• notable brewery/brewpub articles.

• List of breweries in New Jersey
• Laird & Company (the only distillery so far)
• Categories

Something to think about--something that needs organization. Be bold. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Opening Dates & Future Producers

I am trying to get the opening dates for all the wineries. I got the brewery start dates from "New Jersey Breweries" by Lew Bryson and Mark Haynie, and Laird, the state's only distillery, started in 1780. "Garden State Wineries Guide" by Bart Jackson nor "Wines and Wineries of New Jersey" by R. Marilyn Schmidt lists the opening dates for some of the state's 44 wineries, but not all.

I'm hesitant to go by licensing because many establishment get a license long before they open to the public, and there are a number of establishments that have winery/brewery licenses but are not in business yet. On that note, the other issue I've been looking at is what new establishments will probably open this year, so that we can add them once they open. I've compiled the following wineries, breweries, and distilleries that can be added to the article once they open to the public. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Breweries:
Blackthorn Brewing (Toms River)
Flounder Brewing (Hillsborough)
Pinelands Brewing Company (Little Egg Harbor)
Iron Hill Brewery at Voorhees (Voorhees)

Wineries:
Villari Vineyards (Sewell)
Salem Oak Vineyards (Pedricktown)
Sangre Del Romano (Newton)
Seven Bridges Winery (Little Silver)

Distilleries:
Cooper River Distillers (Camden)

• Note, Sangre del Romano is actually in Hampton Twsp, (Newton is the ZIP code 1/4 of the county)--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The difficult part is deciding what address to choose. About 2 weeks ago, I added a note before the lists of wineries, breweries, and ditilleries that, "the town listed is based on the establishment's mailing address, which may differ from the name of the municipality." For a lot of the wineries, which are in more rural areas, the postal office name is different than the township name. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just found that odd because where SdR is located, it's 1 mile from Branchville (07826) and about 7-8 miles from the border with Newton. ZIP codes are rather deceptive in rural New Jersey and Newton is a perfect example...it's the route delivery ZIP for Newton, Hampton, Frankford, Branchville, Green, Fredon, Stillwater, and Walpack Township...roughly a quarter of the county...and despite there being post office box ZIPs for most of those townships.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Spring 2013 Update

I did a review of New Jersey's class A licensees, and no new wineries or breweries have opened so far this year. Jersey Artisan Distilling opened earlier this year, being the first distillery license issued by the state since Prohibition. There are a number of establishments which have initiated the process of becoming a winery, brewery, cider mill, or distillery, some with a greater degree of seriousness than others. I monitor the businesses on this list, and will add them to the webpage if they become fully licensed (federal, state, and local), and open to the public. DavidinNJ (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Probable - in late development stage

• Villari Vineyards – in Sewell, Gloucester County. Has a website, and Villari has long been a produce farm.
  
• Seven Bridges Winery - in Little Silver, Monmouth County. Has 5 acres of grapes under cultivation. Has zoning dispute with Little Silver, but will probably be granted the authority to open a winery by the Monmouth County Agriculture Board Has the backing of several GSWGA wineries.
  
• Cooper River Distillery - has federal distillery license, and has website. Awaiting state approval.
  
• Flounder Brewing - Hillsborough in Somerset County. Has state limited brewing license, and a website. Will likely open this year per New Jersey Craft Beer website.
  
• Rinn Duin Brewing - Toms River in Ocean County. Formerly known as Blackthorn Brewing, but that name was trademarked. Has website, and will likely open by end of spring 2013 per New Jersey Craft Beer website.
  
• Iron Hill Brewery - in Voorhees in Camden County. Iron Hill already has a brewpub in Maple Shade, and will be likely be opening one this summer in Voorhees.
  

Less likely - only limited steps taken

• Summit City Farms – Elk Township (Glassboro mailing address) in Gloucester County. Has TTB license, is a major peach producer, and appeared to have been serious becoming a winery, but may have lost interest. No mention of winery on website.
  
• Shivers Run Vineyard – Mullica Hill in Gloucester County. Has federal TTB license, but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Sangre Del Romano – in Hampton (Newton mailing address) in Sussex County. Has federal TTB license, and a website but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Overlook Vineyards - in Hampton in Sussex County. Received town approval, but no evidence of additional activity
  
• Sciarra Winery - Medford in Burlington County. Has federal TTB license, but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Woodfield Vineyards - Pilesgrove in Salem County. Has federal TTB license, but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Salem Oak Vineyards – Pedricktown in Salem County. Has TTB license, and appeared to have been serious about starting winery, but now up for sale.
  
• Fox Hollow Vineyards – Holmdel in Monmouth County. Has TTB license, and appeared to have been serious about starting winery, but no activity for last 18 months.
  
• San Soucis Vineyards – Hopewell (Princeton mailing address) in Mercer County. Has federal TTB license, but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Twisted Limb Hard Cider – Stillwater (Newton mailing address) in Sussex County. Has federal TTB license, but no evidence of an additional activity.
  
• Long Valley Hard Cider - Long Valley in Morris County. Has 6,000 apple trees under cultivation, but at least 5 years before they are producing.
  
• Garden State Beer - Egg Harbor City in Atlantic County. Has equipment setup and claims that they want to open in 2013, but no evidence of licensing.
• Pinelands Brewing - Little Egg Harbor in Ocean County. Has webpage, but no evidence of additional activity.
• 902 Brewing - Hoboken in Hudson County. Has wesbite, but New Jersey Craft Beer website says that they are in the early development phase.
• Departed Soles Brewery - has website, and extensive discussion about gluten free beers, but no location has been disclosed.
• Glasstown Brewing - Millville in Cumberland County. Has website, but New Jersey Craft Beer website says that they are in the early development phase.
• Laetare Brewing - Spring Lake in Monmouth County. Has Facebook page, but New Jersey Craft Beer website says that they are in the early development phase.
• Little Dog Brewing - Undisclosed location in Monmouth County. Mentioned on Twitter, but little evidence of activity.
• Lower Forge Brewery - Medford in Burlington County. Has webpsite which says that they are still looking for funding.
• Stibinger Brothers Beer - Sparta in Sussex County. Has Facebook page, but New Jersey Craft Beer website says that they are in the early development phase.

Brewery info

Hi! I've been wandering through the "list of breweries in <X>" pages, updating them and adding information. Most of the pages have/had leads that simply read "This is a list of breweries in <X>." The New Jersey page is a bit more sophisticated than the others, and includes wineries, which the others, so far, have not. So I'm pasting the text below that I normally would have inserted. I've used the same basic text and structure for Alabama through New Hampshire, switching out the data and updating the refs. If what's seems to be something you'd like to include on this page, please feel free to paste it wherever you feel it best fits. Or I'd be happy to work it in if you'd like. Or if it doesn't fit what you want for this page, that's fine, too. I'm going to be offline for about 10 days starting Monday morning, so I might not see responses to this. If I do I'll reply.

Breweries in New Jersey produce a wide range of beers in different styles that are marketed locally, regionally, and nationally. Brewing companies vary widely in the volume and variety of beer produced, from small nanobreweries and microbreweries to massive multinational conglomerate macrobreweries.

In 2012 New Jersey's 44 brewing establishments (including breweries, brewpubs, importers, and company-owned packagers and wholesalers) employed 810 people directly, and more than 28,000 others in related jobs such as wholesaling and retailing. Altogether 25 people in New Jersey had active brewer permits in 2012.

Including people directly employed in brewing, as well as those who supply New Jersey's breweries with everything from ingredients to machinery, the total business and personal tax revenue generated by New Jersey's breweries and related industries was more than $1.2 billion. Consumer purchases of New Jersey's brewery products generated more than $263 million extra in tax revenue. In 2012, according to the Brewers Association, New Jersey ranked 45th in the number of craft breweries per capita with 27.

For context, at the end of 2013 there were 2,822 breweries in the United States, including 2,768 craft breweries subdivided into 1,237 brewpubs, 1,412 microbreweries and 119 regional craft breweries. In that same year, according to the Beer Institute, the brewing industry employed around 43,000 Americans in brewing and distribution and had a combined economic impact of more than $246 billion.

Cheers! Prof. Mc (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

can someone create a page for another NJ Brewery?

looking to get the following brewery included: Village Idiot Brewing Company 42 High Street Mount Holly, NJ 08060

been in business 15 months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.116.131 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

list entries

If a entry with no wikiarticle has no references there is no evidence it should even be on this list. That's a bare minimum for possible inclusion, and ideally the sources should be sufficient to show that the company is notable enough to qualify for its own article. Meters (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922044022/http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/33-intoxicating-liquors/1-10.html to http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/33-intoxicating-liquors/1-10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621005800/http://www.newjerseywines.com/wineries.html to http://www.newjerseywines.com/wineries.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)