Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quailhurst Vineyard Estate


 * 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. Wizardman 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Quailhurst Vineyard Estate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A minor Oregon winery. Appears to fail WP:CORP - I cannot find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Existing links are only to the winery itself or to copy written by the winery. Merzbow (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   —Katr67 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.   —Katr67 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. The company also breeds horses, and I added information on that. --Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * References added are insufficient for both the winery and its horse activity per WP:CORP. First is to some online horse webzine called "DressageDaily", that has a single sentence mentioning "Quailhurst". Source is unreliable, coverage is not significant. Second is to a newspaper, but the only mention of "Quailhurst" is the date of a tasting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - producing a Gold medal winner - NW Wine Summit as well as other 2008 award winners, would bestow some notability upon the vintners. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wine competitions are a dime a dozen; even the crappiest wineries place somewhere; placing in a newspaper wine competition is like competing in the Special Olympics. It's good for the soul, but a poor judge of notability. Plus still does not satisfy WP:CORP - no significant coverage, just an entry on a list. - Merzbow (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete. At first glance, this article looked like a keeper to me. But then when I examined the sources, I have to agree with the nominator. Single-line mentions in a publication and a profile on a web site about Oregon wineries aren't sufficient to establish notability for this winery. On the other hand, Merzbow's characterization of the competition is off. According to that reference, it's the largest competition in the Pacific Northwest (whether that makes it a notable competition is arguable). Also, that reference says the wine was favorably reviewed by Wine Spectator - but then, does a Wine Spectator review automatically make a winery notable? I'm not sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wine Spectator has over 200,000 reviews in its database, so I'd say no. Seriously, regional wine competitions are a dime a dozen, everyone claims theirs is the most important. Winning a medal in such a competition is meaningless; as you can see here, this particular one gives out about 50 gold medals per year; there's probably only a couple hundred wineries in the entire Northwest at most. - Merzbow (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Found the Wine Spectator source, from 2007-12-21. I agree, it's just a big list, although 91 points is a commendable score. Anyway, I've removed the "weak" from my "delete" assessment. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right in the middle. There are multiple significanct mentions in reliable secondary sources, including entire articles written about the business in Dressage Daily.  So it does fit the formal WP:CORP.  But for the most part these are minor publications.  The place is more notable for raising horses than wine so the focus of the article needs to be expanded and shifted a bit if it's kept.  Some examples of coverage, a couple I don't think in the article yet: .  Wikidemo (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the links you've listed, 2 is a blog, 3 is a single-sentence mention of the date of a tasting, neither which establish notability. That leaves 1, which is about the subject, but DressageDaily.com seems to be a self-published webzine by the author, Mary Phelps. Not reliable from what I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right about #2 and #3. Dressage Daily doesn't seem self-published though.  The legal notice reads: ©1997-2006 horsesdaily®.com and dressagedaily.com / All Rights Reserved / horsesdaily®, scoresource® and Phelps Photos® are registered trademarks of Phelps Hathaway Enterprises,Inc.  10+ years old, corporate-owned with registered trademarks, a lawsuit, multiple publications under several related corporations.  It seems to be mostly the advertising vehicle of a horse insurance company run by a certain Mary Phelps-Hathaway.  But it's god third-party advertising and classifieds.  When you get down to it all periodicals are self-published in that sense - run by an editor-in-chief and owned by a corporation that publishes them.  This one is just a very small publication.  It's run professionally, and thought enough that people would want to read about the winery / horse breeding market that it was worth printing, in the specialized local horse dressage market anyway.  Not a slam dunk like a 2-page spread in the Wall Street Journal but a minor tick.  Enough of these major mentions in minor publications and either they amount to a hill of beans or they don't.  That's why I'm on the fence.  Wikidemo (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to show notability. I see nothing wrong with that.  Scanlan (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - As currently written, and with the current sources available giving only incidental mention, the notability seems marginal at best - so I'm forced to lean towards delete for now. Although, if it is deleted; I could see it potentially making a return when sources finally expand their coverage of the winery. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was leaning to a weak keep until I thought about the article.  It is about horses and the owners as much as it is about the winery.  Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP.  Winning a wine competition can be a red herring and in fact I think we even deleted a bunch of the competition articles.  While there are a few exceptions, notability for wineries usually takes a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is unclear that the award is notable. All found sources except the dressage daily reference are passing mentions, so third-party coverage is not significant. Lack of evidence why this is notable compared with other wineries. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I contested the nominator's prod thinking this was salvageable despite it being a pretty clear case of COI. The dressage bit is not particularly notable thus the article's focus should not be shifted. Thus since this article is about the winery, the dressage stuff doesn't confer any notability to their winemaking activities (and vice versa). I thought the awards would help, but per the above, it appears that this winery should be given time to age and get more non-trivial coverage before it achieves notability. Also, Dressage Daily is sponsored by Mushroom Matrix, which seems to be a product associated with the owner of Quailhurst, Dr. Hausman. Too much COI all around this enterprise for me. Katr67 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find... - Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2008 (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.