Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Creek Vineyards

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:CORP and WP:WINETOPICS. Being mentioned in a wine guide and in local publications doesn't make a winery notable. Tagged for notability concerns October 2009; no improvements since then. Article prod was removed by author without addressing concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ: I removed the prod but also added yet another reference from a published book. Prodder stated that there was no claim to notability--well, one printed source, by noted wine author Kevin Zraly, says the winery is the largest in the state of Alabama, and I added that adjective to assert notability. Oh, keep. Notable. Printed sources are included. Coverage of the winery and its activities is found in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Anniston Star, which testifies to its status as a tourist attraction--regional, and not exactly Six Flags, but still. Last but not least, it's one of the 100 Dishes to Eat in Alabama Before You Die. Granted, Alabama is not Napa Valley, and muscadine ain't no pinot noir, but I think this passes WP:N. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article asserted no such claim at the time I first proposed it for deletion. If it's indeed the largest in Alabama (only 30 acres?) then that should be mentioned. I see it is now. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast...(but thanks for your graciousness)...yours truly apparently needs glasses, or a brain, or both: Zraly obviously does not claim it is the largest, just that it's well-known. See this correction by LiberalFascist. I mean, I still believe in its notability (as I did before), but if your offer was based on that claim, please withdraw, with my thanks, and my apologies for this strange, strange misreading of a source. I'll leave a note for Milowent on their talk page also. And then I should really sign off. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Its the largest in the State of Alabama  It appears to have sufficient sourcing, but my keep is now slightly weaker until I have more time to look into it. (Prior stuff: To compare to recent precedents, its much more notable than the recent Articles for deletion/Frenchman Hills Winery deletion, and more notable than Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards and Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery ).--Milowent (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC) EDITED--Milowent (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I need to look at it more closely myself. When I prodded it yesterday, it was a pretty obvious deletion candidate based on the text and a cursory glance at the sources. I also want to point out that WP:WINETOPICS was not invented out of thin air; it's a logical and rational interpretation of existing notability guidelines in the context of wine topics. I encourage Drmies and Milowent to re-examine the article through that lens. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've examined the sources. This winery has, at best, a weak claim of notability. The problem is mainly WP:SIGCOV, especially in the context of WP:WINESOURCES. Let's go through them:
 * Kevin Zraly's Wine Guide - a comprehensive list of wineries. Having a 1 line mention in a wine guide doesn't confer notability. Non-notable wineries are mentioned too. There are only six in Alabama, with the first and largest listed, and the remaining grouped under "well known".
 * Birmingham Business Journal - local interest publication profiling this winery. Local sources give undue weight to local topics. This isn't a claim of notability. WP:WINESOURCES and WP:WINERY both refer to profiles in local or regional publications as insufficient; this conclusion is derived from the official guideline WP:SIGCOV.
 * WP:WINESOURCES and WP:WINERY are not currently policy or guidelines. Nowhere in SIGCOV does it mention that local sources do not contribute to notability. Significant coverage in an established business journal that is based in a state capital city is clearly a start toward notability according to current community derived policy. Camw (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a proposed policy, derived from existing policies and guidelines to clarify those guidelines in the context of wine. There is a tendency to dismiss the document because it is not "official", but I observe that those who dismiss it have so far failed to offer constructive criticism about the logic and rationale presented therein. As the only existing wine-related guideline derived from official guidelines, it is perfectly valid to refer to it in this discussion, not as an authoritative "law" but as a basis for debate. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Al.com - online Alabama news source, also a regional interest publication. The article isn't even about the winery. About 1/3 of it is devoted to the winery. Not a claim of notability.
 * There is another article here from the same site reprinting an article from The Birmingham News that appears to focus this winery. Part of the article is hidden behind an archive that I don't have access to so I'm not sure how much more detail it goes into if any. Our article on The Birmingham News says it "is the principal daily newspaper for Birmingham, Alabama, United States, and the largest newspaper in Alabama." - yes it is going to have a focus on Alabama, the same way most newspapers based in any city would have articles aiming to interest their audience. Camw (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why we don't have articles on local restaurants receiving only local coverage. Different standards should not apply to wineries. See my comment regarding the restaurant test below. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Different standards don't apply to wineries. If a restaurant has significant coverage in reliable sources meeting community guidelines then they will be included as well. Camw (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Free tours, museums, and sites in America - a tourist guide, attempts to be comprehensive and therefore may include many non-notable attractions. Morgan Creek gets a mention among 60 or so other similar wineries and vineyards. A mention in a tour guidebook doesn't convey notability, just as restaurants aren't notable just because a tourist guide lists them. Per the official guideline WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
 * 800alabama.com - another local-interest online publication. The winery gets a trivial 1-line mention. So do a couple others. I don't see how this is notable. Yes, the list was compiled by well-known chefs. This isn't even up to the level of a mere tasting note from a luminary such as Robert Parker, which doesn't make a wine notable (see WP:NOTWINE).
 * Sweet Alabama Home - another local-interest publication, gives a trivial 1-line mention to this winery.
 * All of this fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. The winery doesn't appear to be getting any more coverage than any other winery in the business. Unless something better can be found, my inclination, unfortunately, is still to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Amatulic, I'll gladly take a weak claim of notability. The "trivial one-line mention"--well, all places there get a one-line mention (including Dreamland Bar-B-Que), that's the nature of the list, which was compiled by the Alabama Tourism Department, not exactly a "local-interest online publication". (And no, I'm not claiming it to be some national wine magazine.) The winery is locally notable, as a winery and as a tourist attraction, and I look forward to other editors weighing in with their opinions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's locally notable (it's hard not to be when you're one of six wineries in the whole state). But that's the problem. It's the restaurant test. The coverage of this winery is typical of coverage within any service industry. Local restaurants will naturally be reviewed and written about in local papers, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs articles on them. Wine is a topic of global scope, of global interest, and the wine-related articles should be of global or at least national interest. I don't see this winery as having crossed that threshold. You brought up Dreamland Bar-B-Que, a chain of restaurants that received national media recognition. Dreamland has crossed that threshold of more-than-typical-local-restaurant coverage. If Robert Parker or other notable wine critic reviewed Morgan Creek's offerings, or the winery participated or won an award in an international competition, or if it was profiled in multiple national or international media sources, or the winemaker himself is notable in some way, or if the winery played a key role in the history of the region, or the winery is considered a pioneer in the industry, then there would be no question of notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Young winery with no obvious signs of notability. Being listed in a wine guide (which only has national US coverage) doesn't make a winery established in "well-known" or notable enough for inclusion per WP:CORP or WP:WINETOPICS. Inclusion solely based on inclusion in extensive wine guides would go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tomas e (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not have sufficient coverage beyond what you average mom & pop restaurant get in the local/regional media. We would never let a restaurant article, whose only claim of notability is being included on a list of "100 Places to Eat in Alabama Before You Die", stay based on just that. There is no reason to let a winery article with a similarly weak claim of notability stay as well. AgneCheese/Wine 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per points raised by Milowent and Camw.  Passes WP:Notability – it does have significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  The coverage coming from a regional/statewide sources does not factor into general notability.  Notability (wine topics), which includes the subsections (WP:WINESOURCES), (WP:WINERY), (WP:RESTTEST), is not a guideline yet and may never be. Perhaps its authors should focus on getting it approved by the community as an official policy before using it here at AfD. Altairisfar 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While WP:WINETOPICS is not an official guideline, it serves as a valid argument, being a rational and logical interpretation of existing guidelines in the context of wine. Argue against the content of that document if you must, but simply stating "WP:WINETOPICS is not a guideline" isn't a valid argument to keep. And as for official guidelines, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you want. They all apply - particularly WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Trivial one-line mentions in "regional/statewide sources" don't meet notability requirements. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned them because they were among your initial reasons to delete and you, along with Agne, are an author of it. Three of the sources discuss Morgan Creek in-depth and are not trivial one-line mentions. Altairisfar 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. It's local coverage, no different than a local restaurant. We don't have restaurant articles on that basis, so why have a different standard for wineries? This winery has gotten no more coverage than would be expected in the wine business. To quote WP:CORP: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Wine is a topic of global scope. Local sources don't count. The regional sources don't even count, but even if they do, the coverage by regional sources is extremely weak. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in regional reliable sources has been shown. These sources aren't a local town newspaper with limited distribution, as I said above, The Birmingham News article says it "is the principal daily newspaper for Birmingham, Alabama ... and the largest newspaper in Alabama.", with daily circulation of 145,000 people daily according to this - it clearly has a regional scope which satisfies the "at least regional" requirement of WP:CORP. Camw (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we have a case of "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". This is why WP:CORP emphasized national and international coverage beyond regional, adding "at least" to regional almost as an afterthought. For a huge topic of global interest like wine, it seems obvious that "regional" isn't the minimum threshold. The guideline should be interpreted according to the global scope of the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree on the need for global coverage. We have a plethora of articles on highways, train stations, bus stops, schools, 10th division English football clubs and so on - very few of which would have anything more than regional coverage at best. If there are enough reliable third party sources to verify the facts presented then the inclusion of the article is a net positive. Camw (talk) 07:23, 8 April 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.