Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Georgia distilleries


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Georgia distilleries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry even has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comment, two items on the list have just been created as stubs, each by participants in this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did already mentioned that I did that in my comment below which was made two days ago. Dalton Distillery isn't really a stub, looks about the size of a short article.   D r e a m Focus  22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as it is easy to find substantial sources such as North Georgia Moonshine: A History of the Lovells & Other Liquor Makers. Notice that this source highlights the Lovell brothers, who seem to be quite notable, but we don't have an article for them yet.  One of the purposes of lists is to help identify "articles that have yet to be written".  Deletion of the list would therefore disrupt Wikipedia's development. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Manual_of_Style/Lists being a legitimate reason to keep this article. I did a news search for the first thing on the list that didn't have an article and easily found sources to create one.  Other things on the list without an article yet can probably have them created as well.  Nothing gained by deleting this list article.   D r e a m Focus  18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN This is a worthwhile and useful list for readers. Makes navigating the encyclopaedia easier.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not the place for a compilation of non-notable local businesses, fails WP:NOTDIR. Reywas92Talk 00:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipeida is a not a directory.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with the nearly-as-atrocious List of breweries in Georgia (U.S. state) into List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in Georgia (U.S. state), along the lines of List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey. As an aside, if this page survives AFD as a stand-alone article, it still needs to be moved to List of distilleries in Georgia; if 7&amp;6=thirteen is right to say this is useful to readers, it would be more useful if it didn't look like a sub-list "things in Georgia" but rather a sub-list of "distilleries". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also should disclose that I came here following the ARS listing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a clear consensus here... let's try and give this a few more days with some more discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 08:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closer It might be worth considering the AFD !voting patterns of those who have !voted one way or the other in this discussion, and the possibility that all but the first "keep" !vote came here after the first posted about it to the "Article Rescue Squadron", and violated that project's rules by not disclosing the notification here (both the fact that the notification was made, and the fact that they came here because of the notification.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists of this sort are appropriate compromises. There has been a considerable pressure from the many WPedians with predominantly local interest to cover every one of these distilleries in a full article. Though I understand their motivations--they have become of considerable interest to many people in a revival of local production, there isn't really sufficient material for NPOV articles. On the other hand, some will be of importance, and  combination articles   are explicitly recognized in WP:GNG as alternatives to deletion. Sometimes there isn't even enough for that, and then a list is suitable. It provides for further growth, and it ensures that those who look for something here--something which it is not unreasonable to expect in an encyclopedia -- will find at least the minimum.  I've been a member of the ARS since it started, even though I am very reluctant to have articles on purely local often transient companies like this. The appropriate course is a compromise.
 * the main reason to be non-inclusive in our coverage of local companies like these is that the articles will generally tend to be promotional, for the lack of anythign else to say. Promotionalism is a true danger. If we become a place for advertising we're useless as an encyclopedia . Minor variations in notability are much less important, expecially those based upon forced interpretations of principles thar rely on words of special meaning to Wikipedia, alien to ordinary use. Inclusion in a list cannot be promotional, and therefore is not dangerous. It's a minimal compromise, and the opposition to it seems unduely dogmatic.
 * One might think that in a system like WP, where the prniciple for deciding is consensus, it would be easy to rea h compromises. That is apparently not the case--people here tend to interpret consensus as everyone else agreeing with them. The net result is often that those willing to compromise see their position taken as weakness, and consensus usually amounts to agreement on which of two sides is the stronger.  Instead of  consensus preventing fighting, it is just another weapon in the ongoing battles.      DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.