Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Spirits


 * 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 keep. North America1000 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sacred Spirits

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Single claim to fame is non-notable. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS.  scope_creep Talk  11:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: References 1, 2, and 4 are good enough. (I don’t get ref 3, is it broken?) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book provides two pages of coverage (including some photos) of Sacred Microdistillery.  The book provides 2.5 pages of text and four pages of photos about Sacred Gin.  The book proves two pages of text and several pages of photos about Sacred Gin. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sacred Spirits to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)  <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think these books are a particularly good source, nor is two of them particularly independent. One of the authors is an industry journalist. I can't see the third book. The cocktail one has been choosen for its taste. If that constitutes notability I don't know what doesn't. There is 52 gin distilleries inside the M25 (London), and 315 in the UK in total, with 4-5 being added every month. The market is not saturated. They're is one in my village of Houston. They are everywhere, as it is easy to setup. So it is generic category. The only reason it is stood out for inclusion is the special branding and the fact that it has been created in somebodies garden, along with 100000 people that tried to create gin. It very easy to do. Apart from them being as common as muck, there is no fact that makes this gin distillery standout, in this article. It fails WP:NCORP.    scope_creep Talk  16:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The books are independent of Sacred Spirits. I see no evidence to indicate otherwise. That a company has received significant coverage in three books means it passes Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage present in article certainly meets GNG. The nominator's objections seem to amount to WP:OSE--but if we have 50 gin distilleries in London that have this level of independent RS'ing, then by all means let us have 50 such articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you examine the entries in the books? Can you tell me exactly why the distillery is notable?   scope_creep Talk  08:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. The books constitute independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.