Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta


 * 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 keep. Yunshui 雲 水 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTPROMO. ref1 (winedoctor) is paywalled and I have my doubts regarding RSnes. ref2 (Guardian) is a brief product review of "Marques de Murrieta Capellania 2002" (sold for 12 quid) within a review of multiple other wines - and is not about the organization. ref3 (thedrinksbusiness) - seems like a trade magazine, this is a 8 line profile (within a long slideshow) of the chief winemaker (María Vargas) at the vineyard but is not about the vineyard itself. BEFOREing I mainly see a few product reviews and directory style listings. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's one of the oldest and most famous Spanish wine producers (and one which doesn't need much "promotion"). It produces some of the country's most iconic and well-known Riojas. The article is a stub, so of course the current sourcing is not 100%. Obviously it's not something everyone will have heard of or care about, but the point of an encyclopedia is to document things that may be obscure to some people so long as they have real-world notability and history, even if only in a narrow field. Far more informative than documenting the minutiae of every single current-day political spat second-by-second. See this, this this, this and this.  N-HH  talk / edits  10:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Being known for good wine is not sufficient. The five links provided seem a tad promotional trade magazines/sites - and I would question their reliability and independence (in the particular pieces of coverage) required per WP:ORGCRIT.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just about "being known for good wine", or even about that at all. And trade/specialist publications and writers aren't good sources for information about the trade they cover? Sure. Anyway, I've added some detail and references. There's plenty of scope for expanding it further, assuming someone doesn't just decide to delete it simply because, like you, they've never heard of it themselves. It's pretty standard to have pages on notable historic wine estates, eg .  N-HH  talk / edits  13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, they even got the (former) king of Spain to come and open their new buildings, but yeah, not notable.  N-HH  talk / edits  14:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: a historic winery. I'm satisfied with the various mentions of the winery and their wines that come up in google books: . Sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


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