User talk:Trashmillion

Welcome!

 * }

botanist
A few notes
 * Many things are factual, that doesn't mean they are encyclopedic. please see WP:NOT also see WP:NOTPROMOTION
 * The distillery's own site is a WP:SPS, that, as well as other information given by them is a WP:PRIMARY source, and in general we should stick to WP:SECONDARY sources wherever possible. This goes hand in hand with the previous point, as a nice shortcut for deciding what is a good choice for inclusion (both as an article itself, and as information within an article
 * Quite a bit of this article appears to be WP:OR as there are few sources. That leads to suspicion that you may have a WP:COI, but I suppose you could be just a fan as well. In any case everything included needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE from WP:RELIABLESOURCES

basically, this article is reading more and more like a press release from the distillery, and should be cut down to the information that is encyclopedic, and verifiable from reliable sources (preferably not from the company). The entire article is borderline for being deleted as not-notable per WP:PRODUCT

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, almost the entire ugly betty section is a WP:COPYVIO of the gin website. Even if copyvio is avoided by rephrasing everything, that is still clear WP:ADVERT

Thanks Gaijin. That is helpful. I am both a fan and working directly with the distillery. I don't want this to be an advert and all the material in the article comes directly from the distillery and distiller. This makes them the direct source for most of this content since they are the ones who created the product.

I am happy to adjust the tone to be more encyclopaedic wherever appropriate - and of course you and other editors can do this directly. But I would like to get the core details across so that at least there is some listing for this on Wikipedia that has as much of the information as is available. Any advice on how I can change the current article, or reference it to give it more acceptable authority, will be gladly received.

Trashmillion (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the list of botanicals should be deleted, but the more narrative description could be expanded (In addition to 9 traditional gin botanicals, Botanist includes 22 additional Islay botanicals including (name one or two, if notably significant?)


 * Everything that is a direct statement by the distiller or their employees should be attributed as such (see my last change regarding the "original whiskey tastes like gin" comment).


 * Preferably the article would be mostly gutted (As it is either original research, or self published by the distiller), and replaced by the information available from WP:RS, but that would likely leave the article pretty empty. Have their been magazine/journal reviews? If so, the information those include would be much better. There are quite a few blog reviews, or sites which are selling the gin, but most of those probably are not good sources for inclusion, and some of them are just directly quoting the press release.

I think this is going to be a tough task, as the product is really borderline notable for having a standalone article. You would have a bit more leeway if you just kept this as a redirect to the distiller's page, and then had a section on the gin there.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gaijin. One of the reasons for creating a separate page for this is that it is very different to the whiskies that they make - different process, different equipment, different setup, different market, different communities and interest groups, etc. - it doesn't sit naturally alongside the whisky content. Also many of the other gins listed on the wiki gin page have their own pages: [] so it would make sense for The Botanist to do so too.


 * There have been plenty of reviews and blog pieces about The Botanist; however all the material that they cite has come from this very same source, the distillery itself, so citing them would be citing a secondary source that references the primary source I already have.


 * I can certainly tag all the statements with references to the distiller and distillery directly, no problem, although this would mean tagging almost all statements since this is the only source of information on the product and its creation.

I'd like to give this the best platform on its own, but will need your help/ guidance I think to create something suitable for WP. Thanks very much for your help with this


 * To me, the list of botanicals is probably the most impartial and interesting piece of pure information there - it is simply listing what comprises the gin, no spin or advertising involved.

Trashmillion (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While on a personal level I agree with you about the botanicals (and am trying to find a bottle somewhere for a botanist friend of mine), that type of content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article - it reads like a press release (which it is in this case).


 * Reviews or articles which are from reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, journals) can be used, even if their information ultimately comes from the distiller, as they have their own fact-checking mechanisms. Additionally, they filter the information from the distiller (promotional) down to the information that is more notable/relevant. Have their been any magazine/newspaper reviews? Or preferably non-review articles? (maybe talking about how unique/unusual this product is? Or the restoration of the still, etc?) If so, those can be used as a source of a much better article. If not, the article is probably doomed in the long run. Regarding the other gin articles, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I will give the article some more time to see if you can dig up some reliable sources though.
 * Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While on a personal level I agree with you about the botanicals (and am trying to find a bottle somewhere for a botanist friend of mine), that type of content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article - it reads like a press release (which it is in this case).


 * Reviews or articles which are from reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, journals) can be used, even if their information ultimately comes from the distiller, as they have their own fact-checking mechanisms. Additionally, they filter the information from the distiller (promotional) down to the information that is more notable/relevant. Have their been any magazine/newspaper reviews? Or preferably non-review articles? (maybe talking about how unique/unusual this product is? Or the restoration of the still, etc?) If so, those can be used as a source of a much better article. If not, the article is probably doomed in the long run. Regarding the other gin articles, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I will give the article some more time to see if you can dig up some reliable sources though.
 * To me, the list of botanicals is probably the most impartial and interesting piece of pure information there - it is simply listing what comprises the gin, no spin or advertising involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me see what other third party articles I can find to back some of this up. It is important that we get this right as I do think this is an interesting and original enough gin to merit its own article.


 * I would still disagree about this - to me, the one place where I would expect to find out a list of ingredients and something about those herbs, IS an encyclopaedia, hence the links to all the flowers. This is still the most non-press release information in the article as far as I'm concerned. In fact you'll notice this isn't even on their own website - I had to get this information directly from the distiller and botanists (whom I have cited, but who do not have a page/ site/ book of their own to link to). WP is the only place this information is available at present.


 * that type of content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article - it reads like a press release (which it is in this case).

Where are you based? I'll see if I can find you a local supplier for the Botanist!

Trashmillion (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in Madison. The information regarding the botanicals is actually available on quite a few of the blog reviews, so I am guessing they must have published it somewhere (or I suppose it could be listed on the bottle or something). In any case if it is not verifiable (which means published somewhere reliable), it should be removed.

While I am very sympathetic to you and the gin in this case, make sure you read WP:NOTABILITY. Notability does not mean "interesting" or "important", so you could be both of those things and not be notable. Visa-versa, you could also be notable and not be interesting/important. This is borderline - I could easily see it being the kind of thing discussed in some Gin/Whiskey/Scotland magazines or newspapers which could bump it over the notability hurdle - but we would need to find those. Im sure the distillers would have track of articles published by them, or interviews they may have done which could be used as leads. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help - I will get in touch with the distillery and see what information I can get in terms of 3rd party sources to verify this. I appreciate your input (and patience). If you have any other feedback/ suggestions please let me know and I'll do what I can to adapt to fit within WP best practice guidelines.


 * In the meantime, if you contact Winebow (http://www.winebow.com/templates/locator.aspx), they should be able to point you to a local source for the Botanist in Madison.

Trashmillion (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Botanist for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Botanist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Botanist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)