Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi (spirit)


 * 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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Qi (spirit)
No evidence of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A number of articles about this product have appeared in the press, so the product would appear to be notable according to Wikipedia's definition for commercial products. The commercial website for this product has a list of articles by newspapers and magazines, here: http://www.qispirits.com/news.htm What is the best way to show evidence of notability in the article, while adhering to NPV?  Disclosure: Qi liqueur is made by a relative of the author.  Keep --BTB 14:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very few products shipped, so doesn't seem very notable to me. Wickethewok 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few articles about the product launch, but looks awfully limited. Total capacity of 600 bottles a year seems unlikely to become notable, either. Fan1967 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I (the author) updated the page with a fact-checked production number, which is 3000 bottles in 2006. Still keep.  --BTB 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertising, basicly... -999 (Talk) 20:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not fair. It's (almost!) always helpful to a commercial product to have an entry in Wikipedia.  The question here is whether there is evidence of notability.--BTB 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think this product has sufficient evidence of notability? Speak up, if so.  And please take a look at List_of_liqueurs.  Should any of them also be deleted?  Are you being fair here?--BTB 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BTB's comment "...please take a look at List_of_liqueurs. Should any of them also be deleted?  Are you being fair here?". We have articles on many other brands of liqueurs, and this one should be no exception.  This seems to be a unique product in being a tea-flavored liqueur, and is thus comparable to the Chinese chajiu.  It's exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is useful for documenting, which can be very difficult to find elsewhere.  Either we want to document liqueurs in a complete way, or we want to ignore certain flavors of liqueur, only concentrating on the most popular ones such as Kahlua.  The latter mode does not makes sense to me.  Badagnani 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "There are lots of other non-notable things on Wikipedia!" should not be an allowable defense of the article. If the other things are non-notable, propose to have them deleted.  --Nlu (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable product. Even their own collection of news coverage of Qi, which they certainly have an incentive to emphasize, is miserable. --Ezeu 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is "they"? The manufacturers have not participated in this discussion at all, so far as I know.--BTB 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't say they did. He is only stating that they (the company in question) does not have many news items listed on their website.  Wickethewok 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was careless reading on my part, sorry about that. --BTB 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely non-notable as far as volume of cases sold, and the fact that it only seems available in Northern California. Maybe we should start a new category of List of Liqueurs in very limited availability and put it there. Alanmoss 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Badagnani. I don't buy the NN arguments, sour grape gate-keepers. Wikipedia isn't running out room. This is a real product in the real world and at Wikipedia we document such things. -- Stbalbach 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sour grape gate-keepers :) Thats a new one.--Ezeu 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does every real product get its own article? Does a guy who made a small Pokemon video game and sells it through his website get its own article?  Clearly, that would be a "real product in the real world", yet Wikipedia consesus has found that such products do not necessarily merit encyclopedic articles.  Basically, the loose requirements for products seem to be that it either garners press attention/reviews or that it must be an otherwise pervasive item.  This product does not seem to meet either requirement.  Existance is simply not enough to merit an article.  Wickethewok 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * strawman, this isn't some guy with a website, this is a commercial product. It is not unusual for hand-crafted artsian products like this to be sold in small batches, it is why certain wines cost so much - there are beers from Germany that are produced locally and by a single producer in relativly low numbers and they may have no audience outside 30-miles from where they are produced but they still notable. I'm not sure the people voting here know a lot about how specialized artisian food products work. As the website says:  Qi Tea Liqueur is distributed in Northern California by Artisan Wines & Spirits .. so I guess if it's not mass prodcued by Budweiser or Coors then it's not fit for Wikipedia, because this is a Mega-Corp only encyclopedia. -- Stbalbach 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah... mega-corp only, thats Wikipedia alright... 0_o <-(guy rolling eyes) Also, am I strawman?  I always thought of myself more as a wickerman...  Anyways, all I was saying was that "commercial product" does not imply notability.  Wickethewok 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's available from two Internet retailers as well, not just in northern California. Badagnani 18:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You still have not address the fact the small-run artisian food products are perfectly legit as Wikipedia articles. Your logic for deleting the article doesn't hold up.-- Stbalbach 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Non-notable products (small-run or otherwise) are not legit on Wikipedia, by policy or consensus. Using Wikipedia to promote a product is (and will hopefully continue to be) frowned upon. --Ezeu 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability includes as one of its criteria being the most notable exponent of a style. This liqueur is the most notable commercially available liqueur with its primary flavor being tea. Following through with your threats to remove all mention of this liqueur from Wikipedia now prevents our readers (including those particularly interested in various types of liqueurs) from knowing about this tea-flavored liqueur.  It's as if it didn't exist--and our readers will be led to believe that there is no commercially available liqueur with a tea flavor.  Please think twice about this.  Badagnani 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So every time someone throws a new ingredient into a bottle, the product becomes notable? And by the way, Wikipedia is not the only source of information. If someone is interested in liqueur, they will find this one – unless off course it is an obscure product with barely any distribution. --Ezeu 11:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a proposal. Keep the Qi_(spirit) page, but do not put a link to Qi_(spirit) on the Qi_(disambiguation) page (I already removed it).  The rationale is that very few people who search on Qi want information about a liqueur.  I think one could even argue that Qi-searchers generally tend, by nature, not to find the evidence of notability to be very compelling for liqueurs, and as a result they might reasonably keep nominating Qi_(spirit) as an article for deletion (if a link existed on the Qi_(disambiguation) page).  However, a different group of Wikipedia users is interested in liqueurs, and for these people, the evidence of notability is much more compelling.  To help these users find the page on Qi_(spirit), we would keep a link to it atList_of_liqueurs.  Thoughts?  Could this be a consensus position?  --BTB 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. If it's notable enough, then it should be linked from the disambiguation page.  If it's not notable enough, it shouldn't have a page.  --Nlu (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's ironic (and a little sad, too) that a Min Nan person would be actively working to suppress information on Wikipedia about a product containing as its main ingredient a tea produced in his/her geographical region. Badagnani 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it sad that this editor puts the goals of Wikipedia ahead of the fact that a tea ingredient is produced relatively near them...?  Wickethewok 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK Nlu. What you say about links is in line with the convention for Wikipedia inclusion. Let's drop my proposal. --BTB 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone changed their mind as a result of this discussion? I don't see any amended Keeps or Deletes, and we're coming to the end of the 5-day review period. --BTB 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see any reason to change. Limited-distribution, specialty product, available in a small area. Article created by someone closely connected to the producers make this look like an ad for a fairly non-notable product. Fan1967 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry it looks that way. I don't know much about other liqueurs, but I know a lot about this one on account of the close connection, which is why it's an area of expertise I can contribute in.--BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable and is pretty much an advertisement.--Auger Martel 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh.--BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nlu: Please do us the favor of asking a new independent admin to do the final evaluation, OK? I've never had an article tagged for deletion before and don't know the tradition, but it seems best if the admin who first tags the article does not also make the final decision.  Thanks. --BTB 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't regularly close AfDs anyway; I only do it when things really get backlogged, and it's unlikely to right now. --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2006 (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.