Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

List of wineries in Kansas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses. Per Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio this is better merged to the main article Kansas wine with only notable locations. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, we don't delete fixable articles. This one merely needs citation, which are most likely readily available for most, if not all, of these wineries. Wineries are a matter not only of wine making, but of tourism. This makes wineries as notable as the wine they produce. Articles are written from both sides of this spectrum. See List of wineries in New Mexico which has met list article criteria since it was created, and was rightly kept in Articles for deletion/List of wineries in New Mexico in 2015. Skyerise (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tourists can visit a lot of businesses, but that doesn't mean we need to list the non-notable ones. Specific wineries they visit can also be discussed in the main article. Reywas92Talk 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when a winery is covered by two different wine tours written up in the mainstream wine lit, they become notable enough for list inclusion. Yes, they maybe aren't notable enough for an article, but that really is what list articles are for, they are ideally a mix of listed articles along with those which are in the wine news but don't have an article yet. They don't have to be redlinked, but in some cases where they are first, or biggest, etc. they should be. Would you prefer an article on say, Kansas wine tourism? Skyerise (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick online search has turned up a number of pages on Kansas wine. There's clearly some notable wineries in Kansas, it makes sense to have a list--especially since there is discussion about the content as a whole.  Therefore, the topic passs WP:LISTN as having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are "a number of pages on Kansas wine", we have Kansas wine. The notable wineries can be listed there. Even if you want to mention the non-notable ones, that can be merged there too, no need for a separate page. But I do not believe we should be listing non-notable local businesses. Reywas92Talk 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believed that was the proper course of action, you should have proposed a WP:MERGE rather than a deletion. Right now, the question is, "shall the article be deleted."  While merging is a possibility, it's your proposal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not believe simple merging it the proper course of action. And this is wrong and you know it. Merging – or partial merging – is an acceptable outcome at an AFD discussion. Reywas92Talk 15:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused now. This dance around "delete/merge/don't merge/this is wrong and you know it" has me dizzy.  I stand on my original assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:LISTN. Not a single notable entry on the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're talking about here. WP:LISTN clearly states that the individual entries need not be notable if the grouping itself is notable: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single entry has demonstrated notability as there are none with articles nor any that appear under Category:Wineries in Kansas. The sources listed are a range of texts with unclear depth of coverage, these could all be bare mentioned for all we know. The nonimator has pointed out relavant content can already be included under Kansas wine. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is far from complete and there is no deadline. We're not talking about other articles or potential articles or lists in this AFD that could link to this list, we are talking about the one in question only: List of wineries in Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All the sources are linked and easily available, so your hypothetical just indicates laziness. And WP:LISTN says notability for listed entries is not required. Did you read my comment? Have you read WP:LISTN? You comments appear to be intentionally misleading about what WP:LISTN requires. Skyerise (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, WP:LISTN is met. The "criteria" that  references are not a part of WP:LISTN and really seems to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It is worth noting there is a parallel deletion discussion on Missouri Wineries currently with a significant number of keep votes. The arguments are the same there as they are here overall, and like that deletion discussion, this page should be kept as well. -- Tautomers (T C) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Skyerise. Meets WP:LISTN, and doesn't seem to be content that should be merged into Kansas wine, as suggested above. - Aoidh (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2021 (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.