Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schloss Gobelsburg


 * 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 Speedy keep. Withdrawing my nomination given that nobody other than myself as nom recommends deletion and it appears voters are not changing their mind - hence it is unlikely an outcome other than keep will be made. Please ping me on my talk page if any issues. Thanks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Schloss Gobelsburg

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Advertising masquerading as article, unfortunately not clearly enough for me to confidentiality nominate as G11. Has been tagged as advertising for 13 years without improvement. Also woefully lacking in notability and so does not meet WP:NCORP. As no editing can overcome a lack of notability in the absence of meeting another criteria, a clear case for delete. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies,  and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The sources that were in the article weren't sufficient to prove notability, but a very brief Google search brought up multiple instances of significant coverage, some of which I've added. , when you find an article with sources that don't seem to prove notability, before AfDing it, do a WP:BEFORE. You're correct that editing can't overcome a notability issue, but sources can. valereee (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep The sources are legion. The Falstaff link cited in the article's broken, here's the actual link. Grief, the Google Books links alone are, on the first page, enough to get across GNG three times over. Yes, the article sounds promotional, but that's editing, not AfDing... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weird, the other link works for me, and this one comes up as a separate one. valereee (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I did do a before check. I don’t think that trivial references in a wine magazine are sufficient enough for a Wikipedia article. Which of these do you feel constitutes sigcov? Please do not assume I didn’t do a before check. Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment In light of the Keep submissions, I decided to examine my nomination again. I will concede that there are some sources available. One of my back-end hobbies on Wikipedia is to go through the articles tagged as promotional. Given there are tens of thousands, I tend to be selective with nominating for deletion, be it PROD, CSD, or AFD. This is because the project will never make a dent in the backlog if I did this, as each still needs to be reviewed and there is nothing worse than having mass amounts of articles nominated indiscriminately. After looking at the sources available, I probably could have just edited the language of the article to improve its tone, as I do for most of the promotional maintenance tags I seek to remove, and left it at that. While it would have been easier to just leave the article without nominating, now I have nominated I see no reason to close as Keep yet. If you look through my rather extensive AFD log, you will notice I frequently change my !vote from Delete to Keep and vice versa, based on evidence. On this occasion, I am confident in allowing my nomination to stand as delete for now, unless evidence demonstrating my source assessment below is incorrect. Based on the below source assessment table, which is comprised of an example of sources from Google books, news, and the article itself - I am not seeing significant appropriate depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The coverage mentioned is invariably trivial. Granted, there are almost endless trivial mentions of the company, however this is not sufficient to establish notability. I still do not see any deep or significant coverage providing discussion, commentary, or evaluation of the company. I therefore do not believe it is possible to write a complete or in-depth article about this winery without using inappropriate sources or original research. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 

{| class="wikitable" !Source !Significant? !Independent? !Reliable? !Secondary? !Pass/Fail !Notes
 * Parkers Wine Buyers Guide
 * Single paragraph in a wine buyer's guide. This is not significant coverage. Does not address subject in detail.
 * Caldron Magazine
 * This is an opinion piece about wine generally that does not address the subject in significant detail.
 * A to Z of an Alcoholic
 * Just listing in a directory of wineries.
 * Riesling Rediscovered
 * Trivial mentions, does not address subject in detail
 * Gobelsburg
 * Sales website listing products
 * Real Review
 * Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
 * Wine-Searcher
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * A to Z of an Alcoholic
 * Just listing in a directory of wineries.
 * Riesling Rediscovered
 * Trivial mentions, does not address subject in detail
 * Gobelsburg
 * Sales website listing products
 * Real Review
 * Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
 * Wine-Searcher
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Trivial mentions, does not address subject in detail
 * Gobelsburg
 * Sales website listing products
 * Real Review
 * Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
 * Wine-Searcher
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Real Review
 * Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
 * Wine-Searcher
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
 * Wine-Searcher
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Falstaff
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Wine and Spirits
 * Wine and Spirits

! colspan="5" |Total qualifying sources !0 !There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements 
 * Most of this article focuses on the CEO, and does not provide deep overview, commentary, or discussion of the company.
 * Most of this article focuses on the CEO, and does not provide deep overview, commentary, or discussion of the company.
 * Most of this article focuses on the CEO, and does not provide deep overview, commentary, or discussion of the company.
 * }


 * Comment This article is about an 850-year-old vineyard and winery with documented history to 1171. That's an exceptionally credible claim to notability. It's fine to argue that better/more sources are needed, and to tag the article for such, but the likelihood of such a subject not being notable is extremely low. valereee (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more comment on whether sources already identified show notability and/or if there are other sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I had hoped to avoid this timesuck. Here's Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide - the 7th Edition. and here's a full page feature - in depth coverage - in CaLDRON Magazine (BTW, Caldron identifies Schloss Gobelsburg as 'one of the oldest wineries in Austria'). NOW, here's almost a full page dedicated to the winery in the book Riesling Rediscovered: Bold, Bright, and Dry By John Winthrop Haeger while 'The Wine Bible' gives a couple of pages to Schloss Gobelsburg, calling its wines 'exquisitely intense, shockingly pure rieslings and grüner veltliners'. Let's turn to Stuart Pigott's book, Best White Wine on Earth: The Riesling Story, where we learn that Schloss Gobelsburg was at the apogee of its fame in the 1960s, when it made wines for the Cistercian Abbey of Zwettl. I'll skip over revered wine writer Oz Clarke's FIVE books that mention Schloss Gobelsburg, and neglect to highlight 'Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine'. Let's look at Jason Wilson's travelogue through wine producers, 'Godforsaken Grapes: A Slightly Tipsy Journey Through the World of Strange, Obscure, and Underappreciated Wine' which talks to how Russian soldiers looted wine from Schloss Gobelsburg during the War. Dammit - the wine even slides sinuously into the pages of 'Killing Eve'. No doubt there are those who would cavil, saying these are mere 'listings' in 'directories', but they're wrong. There are pages and pages dedicated to this famous, notable and celebrated winery. There's almost no serious wine guide or writer that touches Riesling that does not cover Schloss Gobelsburg - with many telling the story of the winery, the oldest winery in the Danube region, with a documented history back to 1171, its charismatic owner and his dedication to making the finest of wines. Not notable? Do me a lemon. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep one of its wines is reviewed in this guardian piece, Austrian press coverage here and here and innumerable entries into wine publications. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please can you show me where my source assessment table is incorrect or show me your own? I haven’t denied some sourcing exists, I just don’t think it’s significant coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @MaxnaCarta, so you're tripling down, here. Okay. Relying on an online source assessment for a subject that is this old doesn't make sense. You have to balance it with some common sense. Is it even possible, much less likely, that a subject that has an 850-year documented history isn't notable? The fact you haven't found that documented history online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What are the actual chances that a subject that was first mentioned in 1171 isn't notable? 1171. Almost no one was keeping records then. 99.9% of people didn't know how to write. But someone, in 1171, thought it was worth writing down that there was a vineyard and winery at this place. And someone kept those records. It's practically the definition of 'likely notable'. Again, it's reasonable to tag it for sources. But tripling down on AfD? No. Valereee (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Valereee How am I tripling down? I change my AFD vote all the time. I loathe digging in. This is a discussion, and that's all I am engaging in. It's coming up to the seven days and I am just asking for someone to demonstrate significant coverage. I am not being stubborn in the face of evidence my argument for deletion is blatantly incorrect. I've speedy kept my own nomination before. I disagree that this is an obvious case. I have no ideology when it comes to AFD, and I am asking for a dialogue rather than being told I am "digging in" or that my nomination is a "time suck". If it gets closed as keep, I don't care. I'm trying to learn also. Assume I am here for that reason rather than simply trying to stubbornly argue and "triple down". Please point to a policy that states something old "must have sources" and therefore that is an argument for keep. Regardless of age, we still need appropriate sources to demonstrate notability and I do not see them. If closing admin agrees with the other votes, that is perfectly okay with me. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2022 (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.