Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystic Bourbon Liqueur (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   delete. J04n(talk page) 00:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SPA recreation of article on non-notable liquor. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The only in-depth coverage (http://thetipsytechie.com/2014/03/24/sweet-surrender-mystic/ and http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/11/mystic-bourbon-a-durham-spirit-born.html) are interview-based articles that aren't independent. See also Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- I would have to agree and when reading the introduction on the second link "A pair of spirited entrepreneurs are hoping to get their bourbon liqueur from their kitchens to your liquor cabinet." I think it's quite clear that this product is not notable, yet. Orasis (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The reference you quoted from is almost a year old. In the meantime, there has been national coverage of Mystic including a high rating in Wine Enthusiast and many other positive responses around the web - including reviewers who have no relation to the company and have large followings of their own. As a regional phenomenon, Mystic has grown many times faster than many of the spirits products that have their own articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajtra which has no sources other than commerce sites, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passo%C3%A3 which has no sources other than the official website. I'm not sure why one popular regional product, recognized by the national press and which merits a listing in one part of Wikipedia, is denied a more in-depth discussion.50.52.218.250 (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've PROD'd the two articles you refer to. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuart, that's exactly the wrong thing to do. I've been immersed in spirits (pun intended) for a long time. The richness of the field lies in its diversity. Going and deleting references to harder to find products impoverishes Wikipedia. Why don't you consider instead that if a product is out there in the marketplace, selling well, garners the interest of enough people to keep the brand in production, people might want to know something about it? Now Mystic is way beyond that with multiple national reviews. I'm opposing your PRODs on those other pages. Is there some shortage of hard drive space at Wikipedia that I don't know about? How about accepting that spirits, particularly innovative ones produced on a smaller scale with local and regional ingredients are notable for their cultural significance?50.52.218.250 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a catalog and just because a certain product exists does not, by it's existence alone, make it notable enough to be included within an encyclopedia. Right, now, in regards to your deletion of the PRODs on the other pages you are not to remove those tags. If you oppose a deletion you are supposed to make your voice heard on the article's PROD talk page. Orasis (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Those articles were proposed for speedy deletion, and the notice at the top said that if I opposed speedy deletion, and if I enriched the articles with additional sources, which I did, I could remove the notice, so I did. I would respectfully suggest that unless someone can demonstrate at least some subject matter knowledge, running around deleting entries just to seem consistent begs more questions than it answers. 50.52.218.250 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, this liqueur does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirement - also known as WP:GNG. The requirement is that the subject must have received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Each of those terms has a specific definition here, and the bottom line is that we can't have an article about this liqueur until mainstream sources like major regional newspapers (not foodie blogs) begin writing about it. It's no wonder that hasn't happened yet; the brand has only been marketed for a few months and only in a few states. Someday this product may achieve the recognition needed for inclusion in an international encyclopedia - but it isn't there yet. (No offense to the liqueur, it sounds delicious.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (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.