Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Oregon wineries and vineyards


 * 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Oregon wineries and vineyards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article consists mostly of redlinks for wineries that are unlikely ever to meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. As such, it's an external WP:LINKFARM, violating the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We already have Category:Oregon wineries to serve as a list of wineries in Oregon. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- Just a comment, as I'm unsure my final feelings. For one, an article shouldn't be deleted because it simply needs cleanup. e.g., not everything on the list needs to be notable to make it a notable list. (somewhat addressed at WP:STAND). For instance, an article about "parks in oregon" would stay even if some of the parks would never have their own article. The links can be cleaned up simply by wrapping them in reftags. tedder (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Maybe the list needs some pruning and defense from PR/spammer influence, but a list of wineries and vineyards in one of the world's premiere viticultural areas is clearly within the scope of the encyclopedia. Not to mention it's easily verified using an array of reliable books and periodicals. As for the "we have the category" argument, they're not equivalent in content and readers generally don't browser categories like they use lists. Steven Walling  23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a compelling argument to keep such a list. Granted, this list isn't as bad as List of wineries in Quebec (100% redlinks), but still, there are policy violations mentioned in the proposal that must be addressed. Cleaning up the list to include only notable wineries would result in a list so short as to be useless. The claim that "readers don't browse categories" seems ludicrous. As an analogy, we don't have articles on List of Bordeaux wineries or List of Chateaus in Bordeaux. Instead we have articles on individual wineries that meet WP:CORP, as well as a category Category:Bordeaux wine producers. Those articles also have links in relevant articles through the noting of the wineries' accomplishments, such as the chateaus linked in the Bordeaux wine, Bordeaux wine regions, History of Bordeaux wine, and Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not delete articles because they need to be cleaned up, instead we simply clean them up. And your analogy is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and we tend to avoid those. Also, red links basically by their definition fail corp, as there are no sources in the article, well, because there is no article. Many of the red links in this list would actually pass CORP if someone took the time to write proper articles. But these really has little baring on the merits of this list, as we can lists that have no links at all if we wanted to, or we could pair this down to just the blue links. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aboutmovies' comments pretty much speak to my feelings regarding your rebuttal. Steven Walling  07:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your feelings are irrelevant. Policies and guidelines are what matter, and have not been addressed so far in the comments. However, if a cleanup to the point of having a nearly-useless short list is acceptable to conform with policies and guidelines, I'm happy to withdraw this deletion proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be snide. Saying "my feelings" was just a way of saying that I agree with his opinions about the application of policy. Steven Walling
 * Keep since a list can include redlinks with citations to show notability, thus showing in this case wineries that would be likely to have articles written about them, that makes it a reasonable alternative navigation aid to the category. I checked the blue links, and only one is not adequately sourced, so thats pretty good, we dont have a walled garden here. of course, all the redlinks must be removed immediately (ill try to remember) unless someone takes the time to collect a few citations on them. A list of 8 items in a category which can only likely expand (and global warming may increase oregons wine industry if they are lucky :)), is to me not too small a list. ps im not connected in any way with the oregon wine industry, as my edit history shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable as may be seen in Pacific Northwest: the ultimate winery guide : Oregon.... Categories do not supersede lists and one advantage of them, per the relevant guideline, is that they support redlinks and so assist our work. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, Colonel Warden presents an argument that makes sense to me. Closing as "keep". I'll help out cleaning up the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (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.