Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vineyards and wineries (2nd nomination)


 * 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. At first glance, this would appear to be a keep closure. However, some of the keep rationales are using OTHERSTUFF arguments, and as such, I have given little weight. Despite these, it's not enough to be a delete closure, so it's a no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @175  · 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of vineyards and wineries
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Main issues are WP is not a directory and verifiability. Inclusion criteria is unstated and thus it will never be complete or maintainable. This list will forever be skewed geographically towards whoever puts the most time into it giving the reader a biased impression of where most vineyards are. –Moondyne 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This article clearly passes WP:STAND (esp. clear inclusion criteria and usefulness) and does not break policy according to WP:NOTDIR, as it is not a business directory as such and is not a loose association of articles. That it may not be finished, and that it may be biased is a risk for every wikipedia article, and certainly not grounds for deletion. This argument has been had before - see the first AfD discussion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what is the inclusion criteria? Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. –Moondyne 11:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how vineyard and winery are vague criteria for inclusion, and subsequent to that, as this is an AfD discussion, why do you believe that it is probably impossible to state appropriate criteria clearly and succinctly?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was impossible to state the inclusion criteria, but that it was impossible for the article to ever be be complete without such criteria. Apologies if that was unclear.  You're saying that the criteria is stated and from that I can only deduce that any and every vineyard and winery on the planet is eligible for inclusion in this list.  Is that what you're saying?  How would one verify every such item?  My father-in-law has a few vines and bottles his own for family and friends.  He describes this micro-operation as a winery.  Should I add it to the list?  –Moondyne 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean. The best thing then would be to add criteria. I raise the issue of whether it's impossible or not because this is an AfD discussion. If the article is salvageable, then it shouldn't be deleted, but rather improved. I think we can both agree that criteria can easily be established. I've put a message on the food and drink project talk page asking for help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I do agree, but will WP:AGF and eagerly await the outcome. –Moondyne 12:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  — Bduke    (Discussion)  11:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from bluelinks I think it's reasonable to expect the other listings to be made verifiable by a citation to a reliable source. The purpose of this AfD seems to be addressing an editing issue rather than whether the list article itself is worth keeping. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, adding "notable" to the title, and included only ones with Wikipedia  articles--exactly as usual for all such lists. The necessary sourcing will be in the original article linked to. It is true that a complete list of all vineyards in the world would be unencyclopedic, so that is not what this should be. As CoM says, an editing problem. DGG (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with DGG. All links should be to vineyards that have WP articles. The very long list of Australian vineyards shows what would happen if that was done for all countries that produce wine. Note that pruning that list will need care. Most of the links that are not red links do not point to an article on the vineyard but to a town or something that has nothing to do with the vineyard. Just look at the first two under "Victoria" for a start. Earlier I looked at a block in the middle and they were all wrong too. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this better than a category then? –Moondyne 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument is always coming up. We have lists and we have categories. They can serve different purposes. Some readers like lists and others like categories. In addition I have no objection, when we get this to reasonable bounds, to add a brief comment after every entry, e,g "Penfolds Vineyard: Famous for Grange Hermitage" or similar. The point above is that we should not be listing non-notable vineyards that will never have a WP entry. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Moondyne, namely we are not a directory listing. I don't want to hear any whining about it either.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question What part of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? I can't see how this article fits any of the seven points listed there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the nomination under WP:NOTDIR, in particular I draw everyone attention to item 7. A complete exposition of all possible details this article is specificallly defined as that. So what possible filter could we reasonably apply that would make this at least maintainable, notability? with a WP article we dont self reference, filter notability with a RS - every wine guide, wine book lists every winery in the region its writting about. Awards,medals, etc for their wines? Basically everyone of the Australian wineries listed meet basic notability, what this list compares to is a List of train stations with a criteria The following is a non-exhaustive list of train and subway stations from around the world...... smaller scope lists to support regions would be a more reasonable format. Gnangarra 08:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In all honesty, even as a member of WP:WINE, I really don't see the point or purpose of this article? Even with the word "notable" added to the title, this list of randomly selected wineries from across the globe would still be unmanageable and offer little (if any) value to the reader. What would offer value to the reader are well maintained, regionally specific categories like Category:Wineries of France, Category:Wineries in South Australia,Category:California wineries, etc. Eventually the Wine Project will be getting to that but till then, this article is still a poor, encyclopedically questionable substitution. AgneCheese/Wine 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is creeping into the grounds of WP:NOTDIR. I'm not convinced by the argument that it isn't a business listing as the vast majority of wineries are business ventures (for-profit). Tavix | Talk  02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No different from many, many other similar lists like List of bicycle manufacturing companies, List of airlines etc., etc. (none of which need "notable" in their title, so it should definitely not be added here) List does need major cleanup, though: many of the blue links point to articles that have nothing to do with wines or vines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is the best expression I have ever seen of the deletionist mindset as "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it". God forbid that a reader looking for wineries should think there are more more wineries in Australia than there really are; let's get rid of the article, and then the reader looking for wineries will, um...not be bamboozled in this way.
 * Equally thoughtless is asserting 'management' problems and then offering the 'solution' of categorization. You want to categorize all the winery articles, you go right ahead. This article isn't stopping you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is rather thoughtless is commentary on a field that one has little to no experience in actually "managing/maintaining" articles in. As a member of WP:WINE, my philosophies do not fall into "deletionist" or "inclusionist" but rather encyclopedist with the singular concern over whether or not this article makes Wikipedia a better wine resource for the reader. The answer to this is a resounding "no". Take a moment and try to conceptualize how a reader would find any encyclopedic use or value in this article. The title of this article is List of vineyards and wineries-so basically a feeble attempt at listing all (popularly estimated) 56,000+ wineries in the world. What would a reader coming to this article actually be looking for? To confirm that Chateau SoandSo has an article? Well a quick search would take them to the actual winery article rather than to this article. Would it show where the winery is? Again, I would think the actual winery article would do a better job. What if the reader is interested in how knowing ALL the wineries in a particular wine region? Good luck trying to get that useful information from an article that will barely have any hope of being even 3% complete and accurate. Heck, even if they are only interested in knowing what wineries have Wikipedia articles, it is far more likely that a region specific category is going to be more up to date and accurate then this article. So what encyclopedic value are we providing the customer? With this article, the answer is pretty much none. AgneCheese/Wine 16:38, 7 August 2009 (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.