Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taft Street Winery


 * 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. The detailed source analysis demonstrating an absence of substantive coverage has not been refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Taft Street Winery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no evidence of notability. The references available all are write ups in specialize publications that provide such articles on every winery in their area indiscriminately.  DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this stub doesn't fit the general notability guidelines as outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. I also have a conflict of interest as I'm part of the family that owns this winery. I added our brand as one of many winery stubs because I felt its 40+ years of success in the industry was on par with some of the others that are listed in the category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Winery_stubs. I am happy to update this stub as necessary, but would need guidance and would appreciate the support. We do have reliable sources documenting our tenure as well as a history in local Sonoma County politics and agriculture.  Jake.martini
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to get plenty of coverage in the wine press and works which cover the wineries of California. The fact that these cover lots of other wineries too is not a reason to delete as that's the nature of all comprehensive specialist works. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew Davidson, and there does appear to be limited coverage in mainstream press too such as:
 * https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-to-impose-first-statewide-rules-for-winery-wastewater-marking-n/
 * https://www.sonomanews.com/article/lifestyle/past-winners-of-the-north-coast-wine-challenge-look-back-on-being-the-best/
 * https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/01/23/california-winery-wastewater-rules/
 * https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/Top-wine-tastings-Sebastopol-West-County-15662464.php
 * NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - it is adequately covered in specialized media --Rupertdonovan (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete this is a close call: the handful of independent industry sources do discuss the topic, but ultimately in far too indirect and incidental ways: an article on localized wastewater zoning issues includes a reference from a mayor who happens to be the founder of the winery, a couple of local lifestyle outlets include a one or two sentence about the business as an industry venue, some local wine awards include references to products created by the winery. But it just all does not quite add up the notability in my book. It's maybe starting to get close to the line, but not close enough to qualify any burden shifting rules of even the most permissive SNG applicable here, let alone the strong GNG argument that would eventually have to manifest here. Failing further sourcing, I think a delete is appropriate for the present time. SnowRise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 03:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. HighKing is right. Google hits are not enough to pass WP:NCORP; the coverage presented is neither in-depth, full independent, or about the subject. For example, of NemesisAT's four sources, two are listicles that devote a short paragraph to this company, and two are general wine industry news pieces that happen to mention it in passing. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:26, 10 August 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.