Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konig's Westphalian 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   no consensus. I appreciate there are strongly held views on this, but the argument has essentially become "There are good sources! No there are not!". This is an inherently subjective question, and it's obvious from the even split in numbers that it's not one that the community has come to a consensus on. Therefore, I feel no consensus is the only appropriate response. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Konig's Westphalian Gin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of the notability of this product. The only source directly about it cited in the text is an advertisement. The rest of the sources are only for background or just mention the product. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Move or merge. I think all or part of the article could be saved by (a) moving it to a more representative title which says it's about advertising, e.g. "Konig's Westphalian Gin (advertising)", or perhaps (b) merging part of it with an article on historical advertising or something related to Psychological manipulation. The article has limited sources, but so do our stub articles in which more sources are expected to be added later. This article has value in reminding us of certain obvious untruths in historical advertising (such as miracle cures), and perhaps we should not be wasting this possible usage.--Storye book (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete It's a bit ironic that the only book hits I get for this century-old booze are century-old advertisements for it. We need a claim of notability to come from somewhere else besides the article writer. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage on this product from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Realistically, what might such sources look like for such a long-discontinued product? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Additional content added that shows that the gin was award-winning at the Amsterdam 1883, Chicago 1893, Paris 1900, Dusseldorf 1902, St. Louis 1904, Brussels 1910, Bochum 1912 and London 1913 exhibitions. I acknowledge that this information is from advertising but I think it should be accepted at face value. It is partly verified by the official report on the Chicago exhibition in the refs. As a nineteenth/early twentieth century commercial product it is not surprising that sources are often from advertising. The product is no longer made so there is no risk of commercial endorsement. The article also contains worthwhile examples of historical advertising methods that would be lost if it was deleted. We have few articles on this type of historic commercial product and I think there is enough here to make it a keep, even if it will never be a featured article! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "From advertisements" =/= reliable sources... indeed, not even independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What weight do you give to the awards won at Amsterdam 1883, Chicago 1893, Paris 1900, Dusseldorf 1902, St. Louis 1904, Brussels 1910, Bochum 1912 and London 1913? (I accept only partially verified) And what allowance do you make for the nature of the subject matter that is never likely to appear in a book published by a university press? Are we never to have an article on an everyday commercial product just because the sources are mainly in German or pre-internet and therefore difficult to find? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If they're not confirmed independently, say in a newspaper article from the time? Zero. I could advertise any damn thing I wanted, if I had the money. I could even phrase it misleadingly, say that my crayons are "New York's Favourite" based on a single trial in a single Buffalo kindergarten. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It can be quite hard to find genuinely independent coverage of modern products, let alone something this old. And in some ways it is the over-the-top advertising that makes it particularly notable. After all, the product was probably not much different to any other gin. As always, we need to beware the dangers of WP:RECENTISM. The idea of renaming it to "Konig's Westphalian Gin (advertising)" is wholly unnecessary - no one is likely to believe the claims, even if the article were not to comment on them. Edwardx (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see a single policy-based argument there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about WP:COMMONSENSE. Why not try using some! Edwardx (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:ATA. Please also do not make comments like "Why not try using some" for "common sense"- comes off as condescending. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked for a policy-based argument, and I have provided one. Your counter-argument appears to have little validity, as it relies on something in an essay (ie NOT a policy). My apologies, attempts at humour often do not come across well in these discussions. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY isn't anymore convincing argument. Essays and their validity are often underestimated and overlooked. "Common sense" also isn't really an excuse to just outright disregard guidelines or essays, particularly not for lack of notability. In fact, the "common sense" idea is often exploited and misused. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) If "common sense" means every product with multiple 100-year-old ads is notable, I should start a series of articles on dildos meant to cure hysteria. How many were there? Dozens, perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what common sense means. The discussion should be about this specific product, not all products. We would consider other such articles on a case-by-case basis. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article has won multiple awards at international exhibitions. Participation in those exhibitions is verified by third party reliable sources in at least one case. (It may be possible to confirm more awards with a wider search.) Philafrenzy (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide said source here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the Chicago one referenced in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Participation, but not the awards so far. WP:SPS urges that we avoid non-independent sources for such promotional claims. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an independent source for Chicago in the article. I agree the exact award is not specified. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was one of the 250 gold medals they say they got! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say Keep, taking into account that very little evidence of this product would remain. Certainly, it's important enough from a historical perspective, ie. the sorts of products you would find at trade fairs, the types of competitions they held, the development of international marketing for things like Gin, and that sort of thing.  I agree that it would be helpful if even one of the boasted gold medals/records of such could be found, and that their gin advertisements should be taken with a grain of salt.    Th e S te ve   08:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to "historically" important, it would need more sources to verify that. WP:LOSE is also an argument to avoid per WP:ATA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:ATA is only an essay, NOT policy. Edwardx (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Only an essay" is itself an argument to avoid as such a statement underestimates the value and insight that essays can bring. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * a comment on the sourcing issues: Giving this product a pass on sourcing because it's old is the wrong approach to the problem of recentism. The problem isn't that old sources are missing; it's that unimportant new sources are given too much weight. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that, there is actually a good range of different types of sources, historic works, advertising, academic journals, technical books on making beverages, blogs relevant to the area confirm more minor points. Seems like a reasonable mix to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The key question here is what purpose would deleting this article serve? Yes, there may not be as many genuinely independent sources as some might like, but they are very hard to find for old products like this. Per Does deletion help, "Where an article actually does add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. Where it is misleading or biased, it should be removed." Edwardx (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:GNG, the bare minimum an article needs to be kept is multiple reliable third-party sources giving significant coverage. When the references are closely affiliated with subject, self-promotion, unreliable, or only give trivial mentions, they don't add to notability. Sounds like a case of WP:LOSE and/or WP:MERCY. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not address my question - what purpose would deleting this article serve? Edwardx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What I neglected to mention is that WP:LOSE and WP:MERCY are arguments to avoid. If an article cannot be backed with reliable third-party sources that give significant coverage, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not making those arguments. And you're still avoiding the question - what purpose would deleting this article serve? Edwardx (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To keep in accordance with inclusion criteria, which (as I've said) this article does not meet. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I've seen the latest expansions and sources for the article, yet none of it (except the new ad image, again not a reliable source) is specifically about the subject, which is the product Konig's Westphalian Gin. I don't see any significant coverage of it, nor how it is notable per WP:GNG. Note: my understanding is that people are supposed to identify themselves as interested parties in these deletion discussions: both Edwardx and Philafrenzy are creators of this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On your last point, I thought that was self-evident, but will certainly mention it early in any similar discussions. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you describe what sources you would like to see for historic and pre-internet commercial products please? Sourcing needs to reflect the article subject. You have written over 30 articles about Glee, for instance, for which you have ample internet sources, but I wonder how many of those sources are truly reliable, objective, non-commercial sources? If you were restricted just to books published by Oxford University Press or Harvard could you have written those articles? The nomination of this article for deletion contrasts tellingly with the grossly excessive coverage of modern pop culture subjects like Glee or Big Brother for which, in my opinion, one article would be enough. Articles like this correct, in a small way, the systemic bias against pre-internet and foreign language subjects here. Regarding advertising, I fully agree that advertising is not a reliable source, but it is a strong source for the existence of a thing, the time period to which it belongs, the methods of marketing used, some basic facts and the claims made for the product and that is all that has been claimed for it in the article. Indeed, the interest in the article is precisely in the spurious medical claims made for the subject. (By the way, this is also a good example of a German product which was heavily marketed in Britain and the Empire, and claimed British royal warrants, but withdrawn following the outbreak of the First World War. Source - the advertising in the Royal Colonial Institute. But that part has not been added to the article yet.) Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions and is unconvincing since one cannot determine a subject's notability solely based on another's notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not the argument I was making. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but it was definitely a WP:WAX argument. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Please re-read. Amongst other points, I was giving an example of the pernicious effects of systemic bias which prioritises some subjects/languages/eras over others. That is not the same thing. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rationale of User:Thesteve and WP:IAR, specifically to allow time for print sources to be located. As a a defunct brand of gin that was first produced in 1640, it's likely that pre-internet print sources are available about the topic. NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There might be print sources available, but IAR is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per ATA as it comes off as an excuse to disregard criteria (and is often exploited as such). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will retain my !vote as it is congruent with the spirit of WP:IAR, a Wikipedia policy page. WP:ATA is an opinion essay. NorthAmerica1000 12:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I previously mentioned, "only an essay" is itself an argument to avoid as it underestimates and overlooks the value and insight essays can bring. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing content in an opinion essay about not referring to policy pages in AfDs is a humorous conundrum. It's all good, and sources available online about the topic are sparse. However, I retain my !vote for article retention above in this very particular instance. NorthAmerica1000 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably listed among arguments to avoid because the idea of "ignoring rules" is essentially asking to be exploited, and it is quite often misused. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (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.