Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bum wine


 * 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, or at the very least, no consensus. -- RG2 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bum wine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unverified, sounds like original research. All references are from a private website called bumwine.com, which seems mildly suspect to me. Very few Google hits when Wikipedia is removed from search terms, even less when you remove Wikipedia and bumwine.com. Finally, I hardly think this is NPOV. &spades;P M C&spades; 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this title is probably original research and is certainly not a term commonly used in the wine world. Over at the Wine Project we've had some talk about what to do with this and other types of "cheap wine" articles but, admittedly, have not come up with a solution. The concept of these wines are notable and can be written about in a referenced, NPOV way and should have some inclusion in Wikipedia. AgneCheese/Wine 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well I doubt you'll find a lot of books on the shelf about this class of beverage, but there are the occasional other websites (see Cheap Fun Bum Wines, and this Guide to the worst American wine brands). There are enough uses of the phrase "bum wine" out there to vitiate the assertion that the title is "original research". There are also a few books that single out this group of "fortified" wines for criticism based on the low cost inebriation they provide, e.g. D. Kirk Davidson, Selling Sin: The Marketing of Socially Unacceptable Products (2003) p. 132; DIANE Publishing Company, Youth & Alcohol: A National Survey, Drinking Habits, Access, Attitudes (1995), p. 29; Barry Stimmel, Drug Abuse and Social Policy in America: The War That Must Be Won (1996), p. 38, but these admittedly focus on youth drinking. I think it has been proposed in the past to merge this into fortified wine, which I certainly would not object to (although fortified wine connoisseurs very well might). So, keep, rename, or merge. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think fortified wine would be the best place because alot of the production style of these wines don't follow the tradition production pattern commonly associated with fortified wines. I have seen some reference to this as Low end American fortified wine which I will see if I can dig up for a cite.AgneCheese/Wine 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. There is no doubt (and I had no doubt when I wrote this article) that a distinct class of beverages exist under this rubric or something comparable. The question is really not whether there are cheap, high alcohol wines preferred by bums (and apparently underage drinkers), but what to call it. bd2412  T 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about a rename to Rotgut wine? I've found quite a few reference to this category of low end American Fortified wine being referred to as Rotgut wine. See Google news which even include news sources talking about government bans and restrictions on the purchase of these wines (Something very useful for the article include). I've found it mention in the minutes of the Washington State Liquor control board. It is also used to describe many of the wine brand stubs that can merged into this renamed article Ripple, Night Train, Thunderbird, Cisco, Wild Irish Rose, and MD 20/20. I think with some of these sources and a rename we can make a worthwhile article covering this category of wines. AgneCheese/Wine 01:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also seen them called "Wino wines". Rotgut has a larger sense of anything of poor quality, so it might not be specific enough. But if the wine project folks think otherwise, I'll bow to their expertise. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer the nominator concerns I think its best to follow where the sources lead us. Wino wines has a nicer sound on the ears but are there concrete reliable sources that use that term? While I'm not the biggest fan of the term of Rotgut wine the fact that government entities are using the term in relation to discussing legal bans and restriction on the wine gives it a bit of weight. Though I've yet to find a source explaining where the term actually comes from. AgneCheese/Wine 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked at some additional sources and found a lack of a clear favorite, I now think that it should be moved to the more descriptive Low-end fortified wine (with the other possible names redirecting there), and expanded to cover similar products from other countries (I've seen snippets about an Australian brand called "Down Under Red", but can't confirm its existence, and will keep looking). Cheers! bd2412  T 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer Low-end fortified wine to both Bum wine and Rotgut wine but I don't see any reliable sources that clearly utilize that phrase to refer to this class of wine in a way that would satisfy the OR concerns. Despite that it is certainly a more encyclopedic and accurate name.AgneCheese/Wine 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This particular class of wine beverage is certainly notable.  The name "bum wine" is not an unreasonable name, even if a bit ORish; I cannot think of any obvious names which are obviously better.  --EngineerScotty 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree we need an article on the subject of low-quality cheap wines, and the term "bum wine" does enjoy some usage. I wouldn't mind if the articles wikilinked therein would be merged into that article to make something more comprehensive (at least for the "notable" bum wines; the stubs should be reviewed for deletion if needed). -Amatulic 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete hey, I enjoy cheap-ass fortified wine as much as the next guy. Maybe more. But this article is pure original research, and the sourcing is an embarrassment. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 04:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should review the definition of "original research". Your complaint is about the quality of the source, not the verifiability of the content. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added more concrete references. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Do i need to say anything else? Operating 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No support from reliable sources. This is simply a nice neologism that receives about 975 g-hits from mostly amateur wine-blogs, although it also appears in Urban Dictionary, both as a term and as a part of some definitions. --Evb-wiki 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that really an argument to rename the article? There's no disputing that a class of cheap fortified wines exists, and is popular among the homeless (and problematically so). bd2412  T 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Rename to Cheap wine and its problematic use by the homeless, then delete as a violation of WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a synthesis argument. The entry is about the class of wine itself. It is sometimes called "bum wine" or "wino wine" because of the class of persons at whom it is directed, and by whom it is used. Are you denying that such beverages exist? Would you rather see them lumped into fortified wine, over the objection of the associated wikiproject? bd2412  T 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. The term is a WP:NEO. The article (as it stands, unsupported by WP:RS), which is about the type of wine, violates WP:SYNTH. In either case, it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands is a reliable source. That it doesn't use the term "bum wine" to describe the class of beverages is the reason this dicussion should be about what to name the article, not whether it should exist. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also a bit of a WP:SOAPBOX, but I think some mention of the issue may be warranted in the fortified wine article. --Evb-wiki 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the article is advocating a position on an issue. Reporting that a position has been advocated by notable community groups is not soapboxing (and in any event, that is a cleanup issue, not a deletion rationale). Cheers again! bd2412  T 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Subject is significant enough, though bit USA-centric (might want to expand on similar bevarages sold around the world for same purpose). The Name has been used across the web enough to not qualify as Original Research. --MirrorField 08:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There are articles on fortified wines and myriad of malt beverages, which are also lower brow on the beverage scale.. we can't just have articles on fancy drinks! --Aika 18:46, 30 October 2007 (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.