Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batch Premium Gin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. &mdash;Cryptic 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Batch Premium Gin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Looks like just another niche spirit like very many others. No independent refs at all.  Velella  Velella Talk 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy delete on this as it is not a company. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just created, no available sourcing, seems to be using WP to drum up notability. I disagree that this is out of the scope of "company" as Batch Premium Gin is the sole product of Batch Distillery; the difference is semantic only. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete, but I'd welcome seeing it userfied and then restored when sources are available.
 * The UK is awash with new boutique gins. A few years ago a new one merely existing might have been enough to encourage inclusion at WP, but no longer. We rightly need reviews in the gin trade press (there is one) and the upmarket hipsterlies. Until that's available, an encyclopedia article on a single brand is premature.
 * Mind, the idea of paid editing in exchange for gin is becoming attractive 8-)   Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an objective and sincere piece on something of note to Winchester and small-scale production movements. Having carefully and thoroughly read criteria and other Wikipedia small industry inclusions it is difficult to see how this differs: with many locally manufactured goods showing no 'Internet Impact' but are present and certainly contributing and locally known and thus are part of that community. Is its stocking in a recognised national retailer of 'note' do you think, OK to mention? Or does that equate to 'advertising'? It is known in pubs and bars in Winchester, is that of 'note' and can that be mentioned? Or is that advertising? Surely the inclusion of any one town's, city's, region's or nation's food and drink is of interest and value, especially when part of a grass roots change in regards to the ownership of the means of production: Which will become a theme in my intended work on Wikipedia. i.e. the advent of 3D printing, small scale production of foods and drinks, etc. Lucian Sma (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Lucian Sma (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially an advertisement. If there are adequate refs to be found, an article might eventually be possible.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley wrote, "The UK is awash with new boutique gins" yet asks for objectivity.Lucian Sma (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd like objectivity, but we aren't likely to get it. So instead we fall back to proof by authority, in which case we consider WP:RS to be objective (or at least, more objective than mere editors) and we listen to them. If The Grocer, GQ or even Cereal cover it, then we're happy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's simple, and I'll explain it. Every article has to pass WP:GNG, which holds that a subject needs to be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple, independent, third-party, reliable sources.  Whether it's "of note" to Winchester, is locally known, has Internet impact or not, none of that matters.  The only thing that does is whether reliable sources -- such as newspapers, books, the BBC and the like -- discuss the subject, and that you can cite those sources.  There's no evidence that this product qualifies.  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So nothing new exists until it is Media-rised? What? How does that even make sense? It doesn't. You too readily raise the shout of 'DELETE' with no core objective other than your own gratification of ' I am right!' Again the Catch 22 aspect of the core philosophy lays exposed. If you really DO need actual people to talk to, I can give you the contact details of a UK national retailer who is taking up this product in their stores. I will not post it here, so please supply me with an email so I can allay your 'fears' of indiscretion on my part. Which I AGAIN assert to be totally unfounded, I am simply posting about a locally based manufacturer in Winchester, UK.   QEDLucian Sma (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Lucian Sma (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So nothing new exists until it is Media-rised? 
 * Yes.
 * That's how we have chosen to work. Please see WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. We have to define some standard, somehow; that's what we've chosen to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please note that significant discussion of the suitability of this article and related COI issues has been taking place on the article's Talk page at Talk:Batch Premium Gin during this discussion here. I have suggested that such discussion should take place here instead, so that the process can be more coherent, but my suggestion has not been heeded so far. I would copy it here, but I'm not sure it would help (especially since it may further evolve there as well). -BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: Nah, it's much better there. All that's there are attempts by the product's owner and SPAs (who claim no COI, but somehow have the ability to get the owner to chime in) to explain why their product should be exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nha Trang. I also can't find third party, verifiable sources. I agree that the article fails WP:GNG. Lacking a central, editorial board to pass on whether or not articles are to be included in the encyclopedia, we require notability standards, among others, as defined and discussed above. I agree that the solution may be to userfy and hold until the gin becomes notable. It's not there as of now, so it should be deleted. Geoff   Who, me? 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Third party mention:  Lucian Sma (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nope, that doesn't qualify. Check out WP:IRS for the guidelines on what's considered a reliable source or not.  Nha Trang  Allons! 14:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.