Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mollydooker Wines


 * 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 delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Mollydooker Wines

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't believe this meets WP:NCORP based on the minimal level of coverage I located. Disregarding the primary sourcing, all we're left with here is lists of wines, which don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of the company. I found nothing more substantive on a search. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies,  and Australia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Meets WP:NCORP given it's wine rankings. With very little effort I was able to find multiple RSs and have added them to the page. Nom: I'm not sure what your search involved but it was evidently insufficient: please be mindful of performing proper BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion. Cabrils (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Highking (see below).
 * Scolding people who have 110K+ edits and 15 years experience on you is a bad look. Assume good faith. valereee (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Valereee. I actually did perform a BEFORE check, but for whatever reason, I did not locate the sources that Cabrils cited. Given that many of them appear to be offline (otherwise why not provide links?), I'm not sure how you found them nor how I would have been supposed to. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PMC: I do hope I did not offend, that was not at all my intent (and my history in AfD discussions would evidence this). I think my comment is self explanatory. I used WikiLibrary, and a public state library online access; both of which someone of your experience would have access to. Again, I do very much appreciate your experience here and my comments are made neutrally. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cabrils, linking would help. Also your intent isn't actually the only or even most important thing. There's also your impact. Your statement "both of which someone of your experience would have access to" is problematic. This time I'll say both Assume Good Faith and Don't Be A Jerk. If you don't understand why this is problematic, ping me to your user talk, it's not productive to have this discussion further here. valereee (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee: I appreciate your comment and am aware of PMC's vast experience (including as an admin), but with respect my observation was not "scolding", rather an entirely neutral point of fact. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cabrils, sorry, where are you seeing wine rankings coming in at NCORP? Sorry, searched under both wine and rankings, I'm probably just missing which section you were referencing? valereee (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I read | NCORP 2.7 Product Reviews to include wine reviews. I note the links to Wine Spectator are behind paywalls however so I was unable to verify the substance (although it would seem uncontroversial) so I'm hoping to find something to bolster those statements. Cabrils (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I totally agree with Cabrils. Mollydooker Wines is notable. --Bduke (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Can anyone find links to these pertinent offline sources? They're the ones that really are the claim to notability. valereee (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I just posted above to PMC, I used WikiLibrary, and a public state library online access; both of which someone of your experience would have access to. Also, | this online article that I've added covers a lot of the ground. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again I'd urge you to reconsider your approach. Also to add the links. valereee (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm not sure what approach you're suggesting I reconsider? I'm putting forward a valid point, supported by evidence, in a polite and respectful way, urging editors to be mindful of procedures.
 * The links to the offline articles are to URLs behind proxy databases that are not acceptable to the wiki template. I'm not sure what you are suggesting? Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is neither polite nor respectful to make snarky remarks, which "both of which someone of your experience would have access to" is, and if you didn't intend it to be snarky, that's a sign of your inexperience. The people you are talking to have literally years and tens of thousands of edits of experience more than you do. They can be expected to know policy basics, which this is. Basics. This is 2+2=4. You don't need to teach grandma to suck eggs. Just be cool, dude. Again, if you don't understand this, ping me to your talk. valereee (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee kindly and patiently explained to me in more detail the issue and I've removed my comment above. Again, apologies and no offense intended. Cabrils (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts and I have pinged you on my Talk page as you suggest. Again, I intended no offense (and find it hard to see how my comment could be read that way, as I explain on my talk page) and absolutely acknowledge both your and PMC's vast experience. I simply made that point to evidence that what I have added was legitimate and you would be in a position to verify it. Less experienced reviewers may also benefit from this. Again, please see my history of constructive and helpful submissions to these discussions, including numerous amendments to nominated pages where appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now added more online and offline RSs, and removed the references to the dead links (and others behind the unverifiable paywall) at Wine Spectator. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cabrils, you don't have to remove sources simply because they're not online or are behind a paywall or are otherwise difficult to access! If they're reliable sources, leave them, and maybe someone else will come along later and be able to add a link. The reason we were asking for links is that very commonly there is a way to find some sort of link, even if it's at wayback or behind a paywall, and links are generally helpful at AfD in assessing sources. valereee (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. Therefore, as per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability and we need multiple, therefore minimum of two - of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is jut as important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND.
 * Looking at the references and excluding PRIMARY sources and obvious PR/Announcements, here's what I think:
 * Chron prints an interview originally from the Houston Chronicle based entirely on an interview with Sparky Marquis (the owner) and fails ORGIND.
 * I've read the Atlanta Journal article "Why Aussies shake the wine" is written by a wine critic. He recounts how the topic company recommends that, because they add nitrogen to their wines, a vigorous shaking of the wine in the bottle is recommended before drinking to remove the nitrogen. The writer is skeptical, follows the advice, doesn't notice a lot of difference and so still skeptical. There's a canned description of the topic company but little else, fails CORPDEPTH
 * Profile on Wine Searcher has a canned description of the topic company but this is neither deep nor significant, it confirms the topic company exists and little else, fails CORPDEPTH
 * I've read the article "Deal to open cellar doors for exports" printed in The Australian. It has a couple of sentences - one where it says "Wine Spectator" has listed Mollydooker wines 8 times in its top 100 and ranked its "Carnival of Love" shiraz a record three times in its top 10 Wines of the World. Another where it provides a statistic that they produce 90,000 cases per year (unsure if this is correct because another article says it was this number for 2018, yet another (the "Glass Half Full" article says for 2019). For me, this is a little more than a mention-in-passing but not enough for CORPDEPTH
 * This from Wine Spectator details how Sarah has taken over the winery. Starting at paragraph 7, we can see that this article was based on an interview with the magazine. Fails ORGIND.
 * I am unable to locate a copy of "Shake for best result" in the Sydney Morning Herald. Perhaps someone can let me know whether this is good for establishing notability?
 * [telstrabestofbusinessawards.com/about/our-legacy/mollydooker-wines Telstra Best of Business Award] - not regarded as a significant award for the purposes of establishing notability, clearly the information/profile was provided by the company, fails ORGIND
 * I've read the "Mollydooker wines toasts telstra award: article and it doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, just a news mention about being nominated. Fails CORPDEPTH
 * "Glass half full for left-handed lady of wine" article relies entirely on an interview and information provided by the company. Fails ORGIND
 * None of the references meet NCORP criteria, there's either no in-depth information on the company (just mentions of the name or a focus on one of their brands, etc) or it has great information but it comes from an announcement or (more likely) an interview. If the topic company was notable, somebody would write about it without needing an interview or a news-event in order to comment.  HighKing++ 18:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On what basis are the Telstra Business Awards "not regarded as a significant award for the purposes of establishing notability"? And just for clarity, are you suggesting that interviews per se fail WP:ORGIND? Cabrils (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not significant for the purposes of establishing notability for a number of reasons. They're self-described as follows: The Telstra Best of Business Awards were created to give small to medium-sized businesses a platform to celebrate achievements and stories with their peers, and opportunities to learn from Australia's best business minds. Sounds fun. But the biggest reason is that each year there are multiple "winners" in each category. In 2019, the year this topic company "won" an award, there were 170 "finalists" and over 32 "winners". These types of national awards with multiple national winners across multiple categories are not notable. There might be an argument that an "overall champion winner" from each year is notable but that isn't the case with the topic company.
 * For clarity, if an article "relies entirely" an interview, effectively reprinting an interview, it is effectively a PRIMARY source anyway and I don't think there's any argument over sources like those. A popular format is where a writer mixes blocks of text with direct quotes such as the Chron article . For me, I cannot identify anything in that article that meets WP:SIRS, that is "Independent Content" - i.e. content that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company/org (which then meets WP:CORPDEPTH). The reason I point it out in this way is because there might be trivial parts to the article that could arguably be attributable to the journalist but is still no use for establishing notability. For example, you might say that the sentence "Marquis and his partner-in-winemaking wife Sarah aren't big into acid" is the opinion of the journalist, therefore Bingo! we have "Independent Content" and meets ORGIND - but no, that is trivia. Apologies for going into so much detail but often times the simplest is just to step back a little with SIRS in the forefront of your mind and simply read the article to see what the *journalist* (or perhaps a third party the journalist interviewed!) says about the topic company. If you can't find anything significant, it isn't a good source for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 10:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for patiently explaining that, and for your thorough assessment above of the refs. It's cogent and I am persuaded. I don't think the page can pass NCORP given that assessment. I've changed my !vote (above). Apologies to PMC for my evidently blunt and misguided wording, and appreciation to valereee. Cabrils (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I tend toward bluntness myself, so no hard feelings :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2022 (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.