Template:Did you know nominations/Konig's Westphalian Gin


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Konig's Westphalian Gin

 * ... that Konig's Westphalian Gin claimed to be "highly recommended by all doctors ... especially for cholera, malaria and typhus"?
 * Reviewed: Killiechassie
 * Comment: The quote can be seen in the advertisement shown in the article.

Created by Philafrenzy (talk), Edwardx (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 09:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to Go! Length is over 1500 characters. Age is within the 5 day limit. Hook is interesting and verified. Article is free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing issues. Article is well referenced and neutral. Hook under the 200 character limit.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg According to DYKcheck, the article currently has 1471 prose characters (down from 1487), and prose characters are what matter for DYK. The article needs further expansion before it can be approved. Perhaps more detail on when it stopped being made? (And why it was, if it was "popular"?) The article's unbalanced with over half of it talking about marketing, and as far as I can tell, said marketing is almost entirely based on a single 1913 advertisement. I don't see how, in its current state, the article meets WP:DYKSG, which says in part: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will try to expand it. It's not surprising that it is mostly about marketing really as Gin is Gin, like Vodka is Vodka, and all that really distinguishes these products is how they market themselves. It's an example of how it was possible to make these sort of health claims for an alcoholic drink at this time and that is where the interest is in the article and the DYK. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Expanded with more background and refs. Please take another look. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Right now almost all of the claims in the article can ultimately be sourced back to the manufacturers. This is not independent enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You realise that we are not actually saying it can cure cholera etc? The point of the hook is the laughable claims made for an alcoholic drink (which is no longer made) over 100 years ago in their advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was true, did I? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Konig's Westphalian Gin pretended to be "highly recommended by all doctors ... especially for cholera, malaria and typhus"?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed for ALT1, and for my copyedit for neutrality in response to comment by Crisco 1492 above. --Storye book (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "pretended" sounds wrong in this context. "Claimed" is a better word I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "pretended" sounds awkward. How about a compromise, "falsely claimed"? Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that Konig's Westphalian Gin falsely claimed to be "highly recommended by all doctors ... especially for cholera, malaria and typhus"?
 * The claim was false but they probably thought it was true. I think the original hook is still the best. It's not like anyone is going to start drinking gin to cure cholera is it? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The meat of the article is still cited to the ad or not cited at all. Let's put it simply. The article is 2281 characters long, including the lead. A total of 1635 characters (i.e. more than three quarters of the article) is either referenced to the advertisement or not referenced at all. Right now this doesn't even indicate notability, let alone that the article is fleshed-out enough for DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm not convinced of the notability of this product and have nominated the article for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In view of the above discussion and the deletion tag on the article, and in the interests of clearing the DYK nom backlog, I move that this DYK nom is now closed. I believe that all or part of the article could be saved by (a) moving it to an alternative title about the advertising aspect, e.g. "Konig's Westphalian Gin (advertising)", or perhaps (b) merging it with an article on historical advertising. However that would make no difference to this nom due to the above comments about sourcing. --Storye book (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem with moving the article to something focusing on the advertising is that it is still reliant on a non-independent source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and I have discussed that on the article's deletion page. That doesn't help us here, though. I still move to close this nom, which is a separate matter. The creator and nominator have not been able to resolve the sources question since BlueMoonset mentioned it on 18 May. --Storye book (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this stay open until the AFD is closed? As part of that discussion I will be adding any additional sources I can find and those will also determine whether this DYK is valid. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We typically freeze DYK nominations on articles at AfD until the process has concluded. At this point we might as well keep this one open until then, on the off-chance that the issues might finally be addressed—this is far from the oldest outstanding nomination (over twenty unapproved ones are older), and not yet a month old. However, since the AfD has already been open for almost a third of its ultimate duration and no edits have been made on the article, it's heading for deletion there and probably failure here: it has been over three weeks since I first pointed out significant issues, and over four days since Crisco confirmed that the independence of sourcing was a major issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed because Afd nomination is now closed due to lack of consensus (see Articles for deletion/Konig's Westphalian Gin. I have reverted my comments above because IMO they are no longer valid. As I understand it, the new review should not view the fact that citations are sourced in advertising as a negative factor in this DYK nom. --Storye book (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The hook is about the advertising. It is therefore not surprising that the primary source for that is the advertising itself. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review needed because Afd nomination is now closed due to lack of consensus (see Articles for deletion/Konig's Westphalian Gin. As I understand it, the new review should not view the fact that citations are sourced in advertising as a negative factor in this DYK nom. This comment has been repeated to show that the new-review request is still valid, and that the above comment of 15 June by nominator Philafrenzy should still be taken into consideration. --Storye book (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg There is no valid reason why the primary source citations from the advertising can't be considered a negative factor. There may have been no consensus on the notability of the product, but the use of these primary source citations—ads—to write a Marketing section filled with analysis and conclusion runs afoul of WP:OR. Take the opening sentence: Since Konig's gin was much like other Steinhäger gins, it sought to differentiate itself from its competitors through exaggerated advertising slogans. Do we in fact know that it was much like the other Steinhäger gins in taste and alcohol level, that its collection of awards and claimed royal warrants was typical of its peers, and so on? The core of this article—the material about this one specific gin—is solely based on two ads that were used in 1913 and 1914 (no backing I can see for the "widely advertised" claim, which requires some actual data on this product vs. its peers and the number of available publications and how many Konig's actually bought space in): in short, I still find the article severely wanting, and not appropriate for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)