Valhalla Vineyards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted by the closing admin even though he merged a good portion of the content elsewhere (without redirecting), and in so doing has failed to maintain GFDL attribution. He told an editor inquiring about the merge "What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?", and expresses very strong opinions on the subject's notability and appropriateness for a stand-alone article, going so far as to refuse to userfy it for improvements. He appears to be enforcing his own opinion of the subject instead of weighing the arguments offered in the discussion, which clearly demonstrates at least a no consensus or (based on policy arguments) a keep outcome ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you provide a diff of the merge please CoM otherwise we can't assess the allegation of a licensing violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not take part in the deletion discussion but I have just reviewed it. The deletion decision by the closing admin was correct. The were no good keep arguments based on policy. However, I do think the article should be undeleted and made a redirect to North Fork of Roanoke AVA. The relevant diff is here. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely need to undelete and redirect. Trout slap to Sebastian for not knowing that. I abstain on endorsing the close. Fences&Windows 03:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the keep/delete issue, but why is it necessary to undelete in order to create a redirect? Why can't a redirect be simply created from scratch now? If the delete outcome was basically correct, then undeleting and redirecting could create potential problems in the future, e.g. if somebody simply undoes the redirect later. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick link: WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for being dense, but after looking at the link you mention, I don't see how it answers my question. My point is that, undeleting and redirecting will, as I understand it, restore the history log of the deleted article. Then if someone simply undoes the redirect later, the deleted article will reappear and this could be problematic. If the delete outcome (rather than, say, keep or no consensus) was basically correct, then amending the AfD outcome to delete and redirect seems better than changing it to undelete and redirect". Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Merge and delete has more. The linked pages have complete explanations; the gist is that due to attribution requirements, copying/merging and deleting are mutually exclusive or require workarounds. Since SebastianHelm copied content to another article after deleting the source history/list of authors, some action must be taken, which is most commonly undeletion. The increased ease of unilateral restoration is an unintended side effect. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, got it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stifle points out below that WP:Merge and delete is outdated, listing requirements that no longer apply —page has been updated Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC). WP:Copying within Wikipedia is a better reference. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That reference still makes it clear that attribution is essential and gives undeletion as a way of doing this. This fits our case perfectly. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, attribution in some form is required if the copied content is kept. As I wrote below, I consider this to be a distraction to the main issue of reviewing the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The offending material has been removed from the North Fork of Roanoke AVA article. It really wasn't appropriate for a wine region article to single out details on 1 winery, especially when the information itself isn't noteworthy or encyclopedic. Anyways, there is no longer a GFDL issue or need to redirect the winery's name to the AVA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I think, still a copyright issue with the earlier versions of the page which are accessible through the page history. Wouldn’t those need to be deleted to solve the problem? Ian Spackman (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, copyright issues are and should be resolvable by ordinary editors. Expecting copyright compliance on every version in the history is not reasonable. Creating attribution for removed inappropriate content as normal policy would be to create a can of worms. If someone really cares, Wikipedia:Revision deletion could be used, although I think it would be overkill. We are working to make a good quality live encylopedia, not to attend to intermediate versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Selective deletion is another method. Deletion may be necessary to prevent accessing or reverting to an infringing version. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be necessary. If a redirect is not desirable, then the history could be moved to a subpage of the article's talk page, and then either redirected or replaced with a note about the merged content. snigbrook (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This method is described at WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page. It requires setup (undeletion, move, dummy edit, Talk page tag) and maintenance (article move, tag removal), which are ultimately unnecessary if the merged content is rejected. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close and the extensive list in the closing statement. Merging was mentioned only once and not actually recommended, so it is a poor "compromise" solution. I need more information to judge the attribution issue. Is the cached version the same as the deleted version? Its date (25 Dec 2009 23:30:52 GMT) makes that seem unlikely. How much of the content was copied or rewritten? Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copied content appears to be a clear infringement and a distraction to evaluating the AfD. I propose that the merger be undone by deleting (WP:Selective deletion) all revisions after this version. This resets the article's state to the time of deletion; I assume that SebastianHelm did not intend to subvert his own close. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The delete supporters' attention to specifics was compelling: they presented focused reasoning to reject sources as they were offered. No argument was dismissed without explanation for merely conflicting with WP:Notability (wine topics), so its proposed guideline status is not a major concern. The closer collected the sources and arguments into an easily reviewable list, referring to WP:WINETOPIC for convenience and clarity. I didn't see any new arguments advanced in the closure. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close While no doubt Sebastian was working in the best good faith efforts to forge a compromise solution, in all honesty, the material he added to North Fork of Roanoke AVA is not needed in the article. As expounded on in the AfD, the winery is not notable enough to merit a mention in the Virginia wine article nor is it particularly notable for inclusion in the AVA article. As an editor that works extensively with wineries and wine related articles, I can tell you that the "gravity flow" wine cave is by no means a unique or notable feature in the wine industry. In fact it is a rather "old school" technique that is only noteworthy (at best) as an example of something "retro" occasionally coming back in use. Wikipedia wouldn't find it interesting if one pharmacist in the city of Roanoke, Virginia decided to go "old school" and exclusively use a mortar and pestle. I doubt we would redirect the drug store or pharmacist name to Roanoke based on just that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close I fully realise it was not to everyone's liking, but it clearly was the product of Sebastian taking time to look long and hard at the arguments, and weighing them against policies and guidelines. This, by the way, resulted in the same conclusion as for those of us who are active participants in WP:WINE and have tried to think about where to "set the bar" to achieve good and worldwide but encyclopedic coverage of wine-related subjects. That Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) is only a proposed policy and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide is only an essay should not really matter that much; rather than differing from other existing policies, they represent fairly thoroughly elaborated attempts to explain in more concrete terms how these other, official policies apply to wine-related articles, partly to the benefit of editors who jump directly into editing wine-related articles. I get the impression that real issue behing bringing this to DRV is mainly concern about closing it as "delete" rather than GFDL issues or the mentioning the Spanish Inquisition in response to "inquisitive" :-) questioning after the AfD was closed with a very thorough explanation. To me, the Spanish Inquisition mostly brings associations with soft cushions, comfy chairs and -not to forget- nice red uniforms. :-) Tomas e (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a temp undelete to check out the claims of a licensing violation? Timotheus Canens (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need, this is clearly a violatiuon of our attributation policies as merge material must be attributed with a redirect from the undeleted history of the source article. This becomes moot if the marge material is rejected by the host article and I suggest we hold a tad to see if the merge material sticks. Aside from that the closer requires a severe trouting for violating our license. Any admin closing xfd debates must have a sufficient understanding of attributation requirements to avoid foul ups like this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked because the cached version looks very different from the merged text. So it was edited in the mean time and then the edited version was merged? If so then undelete and redirect. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) changed, see below. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone by the closing admins edit summary when they merged the material. (→Wineries: Adding some of the text from deleted article Valhalla Vineyards) Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just reread the discussion yet again. I think there was no consensus either way. The critical issue here is WP:GNG, which provides that a subject is considered notable if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:WINETOPICS was also discussed, but it is not a guideline, only a proposed one, and a secondary notability criterion normally cannot override the GNG. There is vigorous disagreement on the question whether certain sources amounted to significant coverage, or qualified as reliable sources. I would draw a line between arguments contrary to policy, which admins are entitled to ignore, and a legitimate difference of views on the application of policy to a particular source, which should be respected. This AfD seems to be a case of the latter, and I see no consensus of whatever sort. Overturn to no consensus, which also moots the GFDL question. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The issue was a straightforward matter of notability which turns on the quality of sources. The sources were extensively reviewed in the course of the long discussion and new sources were found. The sources were generally quite reputable organs such as Wine Spectator and the New York Times and the reviewing editors split quite evenly 7-8 in saying whether they were adequate. Rather than making the obvious conclusion that there was no consensus to delete, the closer reviewed the sources himself and applied his own judgement of them. His rationale for applying his own judgement rather than accepting the judgement of the discussing editors is "I just have seen too many sock puppets, meat puppets, vote stacking and sheep votes". This fails to assume good faith without any evidence to support these allegations in this case. This seems inadequate to override the guidance of WP:DGFA which states clearly, "When in doubt, don't delete". The existence of doubt is further confirmed by the closer's action in merging some of this material to another article. This demonstrates that he considers that this material has merit and, as discussed above, he should not have deleted its edit history contrary to our licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:MAD and GFDL references are no longer relevant as Wikipedia now uses the CC-BY-SA, which only requires preservation of attribution (which can be done by a null edit) rather than history. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Licensing update which states, "Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to...". If an article to which an editor contributes is deleted then it is no longer possible to attribute to it. Deletion is therefore improper if you wish to reuse the content. It is also obviously improper for a closer to claim that material should unambiguously be deleted and then to reuse that exact same material - the two positions are not consistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stifle is correct. That text appears to be outdated, see c) a list of all authors at WP:Copyrights#Re-use of text and wmf:Terms of Use#Information for re-users. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The links that you provide emphasise the need for a hyperlink to acknowledge contributions and so Stifle is incorrect. It is clearly possible for us to provide such a hyperlink in this case and so we must do so. To do otherwise is to treat contributors with disrespect and to break their copyright. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to get that technical, I'll point out that the requirement is that users are credited by means of a hyperlink, not that anything be actually present to read at that hyperlink. If there's a redirect, someone visiting the article will be redirected to the new article, and clicking the history is unlikely to reveal the editors of the old article. Therefore, my solution (a null edit with the usernames of the main contributors to the old article) is in fact better for attributing than your suggestion. This wildly paranoid conjecture that an article must absolutely never, ever, ever be deleted ever after it has been merged somewhere is at best obstructive. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not a matter of mental illness but of common courtesy. Maintenance of edit history and content in such cases is entirely consistent with our editing policy and so is helpful rather than obstructive. Removal of good faith well-sourced content and creation of dangling links is both obstructive and destructive and so inconsistent with our mission and policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This discussion is on how to attribute merged content. Trying to broaden it to arguments against merging or arguments against deleting articles on non-notable topics isn't helpful. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • This discussion is about Valhalla Vineyards which should not have been deleted as there was no consensus to do so, there being numerous experienced and good faith editors who opposed this action which was not supported in any way by policy. The closer's action in merging some of the material demonstrates conflicted action which indicates the presence of doubt and lack of consensus within the closer's own mind. This is the salient issue here while nitpicking about licence changes seems largely irrelevant as these are not material. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and applaud the closing admin not just for making the right call but for carefully and specifically explaining it. Well done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: I think it was a clear keep case, but "no consensus" would have been within admin discretion. But not "delete." In addition to the cites added to the article while it is was in AFD (which are not in the cache version, but which I think I captured most of [1]), I'd say the Keep !votes generally show they thought keep was a no-brainer outcome. The coverage of this winery is rather extensive, and not all coverage of the winery was even added to the article. (e.g., and this is just a few more, [2] (article in The Japan Times), [3] (Governor of Virginia visit to winery), [4], [5], ) Despite being judged "possibly the best of Virginia wineries" [6], (out of at least 157 wineries in the state [7]), and "some of the best reds on the East Coast" [8] [9], the article was deleted. If the most revered Virginia winery, with sourcing, is not notable, that suggests that every winery article for any winery outside CA, WA, and OR (the top three wine producing states in the U.S.) should be deleted. That doesn't make any sense.--Milowent (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were those sources discussed at the AfD? They don't look familiar. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they were, as they weren't in the article. The keep !votes didn't try to add every possible citation to the article because it seemed an obvious keeper, i think.--Milowent (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any of them discussed specifically, although a link to the governor's visit article was given in a list found to be insufficient in Murgh's original weak delete recommendation. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse what seemed to me a thorough and considered AfD close. The support for keep relies with on undue weight on local paper and tourism-route books, while multiple reliable sources are absent. While the mention in the Wine Spectator article was a start, to claim New York Times as a source is deceptive and insulting. This producer may be in Virginia's top 30, but it is most certainly not the state's "most revered". Wikipedia needs better sources than this. Winemaking is normally a long game, and satisfactory sources for this article subject may well appear in the future, but for now they are insufficient. MURGH ^disc. 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in your view, are there any Virginia wineries which merit coverage on Wikipedia?--Milowent (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely? Well, beyond the obvious Monticello Wine Company, the pioneers of the 60s-80s are notable. There is certainly Barboursville Vineyards and Horton Vineyards where vast amounts of acceptable sources could be found without much problem, I'd guess Linden, Kluge Estate, Pearmund Cellars, Thibaut-Janisson, maybe Michael Shaps, White Hall, Jefferson Vineyards or Veritas Vineyards would edge in the needed RS. Just some of the VA producers not yet on WP whose source coverage and notability I think far surpass that of Valhalla. MURGH ^disc. 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its far from obvious to me why Monticello Wine Company is notable, if Valhalla isn't. The sources cited include a locally published book about architecture, a Virginia highway marker, a CFR cite that doesn't mention the winery, a Virginian-Pilot article that makes no mention of the winery, and a blog (shiver me timbers!!) that says the winery won an award in Vienna in 1873, the same year it was founded(?)(Actually, I think that blog is wrong, as this book says it was 1876.[10]). This winery has a total of 11 google news hits, a few of which are trivial -- and clearly less coverage than Valhalla has received (though I concede its hard to write about Monticello a 100 years later.)--Milowent (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you really mean "far from obvious".."why Monticello Wine Company is notable, if Valhalla isn't".. Its history vs. no history. Noone has even given a proper effort to sourcing it and it's still vastly more notable than Valhalla is likely to be for a while. I wouldn't worry about the blog text of Richard Leahy, he is an editor and journalist with Vineyard & Winery Management and appellationamerica.com, a US East Coast wine expert in the absence of many of those, a collaborator with Kevin Zraly and a guy with satisfactory wine pondus, working in the field since some 10 years before the Vasciks decided to have a go at winemaking. His statement placing the alleged event in Vienna in 1873 seems sound, and it's not so incredible to envision a cooperative of grape farmers having fruit to work with in the year they merge to establish a collaborative facility. I can promise you however that Dr. Vascik hadn't sold a drop of wine by the time the AP interest piece ran in the Wilmington Morning Star. (They had however found a Buddha while they were digging which curiously isn't mentioned in the story). Polishing this historical article will have to wait, but please look to Barboursville Vineyards as an example of what I mean with how easily a notable subject of VA wine allows an article to be sourced. Why must it be about scraping through as much inadequacy as possible when we should be supplementing quality from the top? MURGH ^disc. 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do mean far from obvious, Murgh, look below for my comments about Barboursville in reply to Amatulić. As for Monticello, old history doesn't automatically mean better or more notable history.--Milowent (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. One is featured in A history of wine in America, and the other isn't. One would nicely benefit from hard work and the other couldn't support sourced substance for an acceptable article. MURGH ^disc. 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured? It has two paragraphs!!! (starting at p.413).--Milowent (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That goes considerably deeper than the "much-honored" snippet from the NYT travel piece. MURGH ^disc. 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, nice selective argument there. And while I won't suggest that the NYT article standing alone conferred notability, you may recall that article also cited Valhalla as among six wineries in the "upper pantheon" on Virginia wines. Just as Fodor's guide to VA and MD lists only six Virginia wineries, including Valhalla.[11]. I'm not going to recount all the sources people posted in various discussions. Valhalla is not just some run of the mill winery (whose existence on wikipedia would somehow invite 1000s of winery articles), otherwise places as far flung as the Japan Times would not profile it.[12] Its clear this DrV doesn't have a huge chance at this point of overturning the deletion, unless some of you fine WP:WINE folks would consider admitting that Valhalla probably is notable, but that the article as it stood at the time of nomination did not demonstrate that. This is a perfect example of why wikipedia should adhere to the "when in doubt, default to keep" principle. Your own !vote was a "weak delete" on this one, and you endorsed the outcome in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell Towne Vineyards (where the nominator for this DrV actually voted delete!).--Milowent (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, selective argumentation really seems the law of the land ;^) Yes, as you point out, mine was a weak delete, and I see Valhalla as close to sufficiently RS covered. I think all it takes is the attention of a certain level of press that may happen soon or eventually, which should also provide structure for something to actually put into a WP article, not a list of statewide accolades. Whereas Jewell Towne was notable in being the oldest winery of the state and its owner, with some weird variety experiments, attracted attention from the right sort of people, there is still written too little about Valhalla. I put it down to young age and expect it will have its WP article in the end, but on the current basis it's a matter of principle to hold off. MURGH ^disc. 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Williamsburg Winery, for example, is the largest producer in Virginia at 60,000 cases per year. Considering that the entire state produces only 250,000 cases per year (less than some single major producers in California), that's certainly notable. And look, we have an article on it, although the sourcing is just awful. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does one distinguish the two then? It seems to me that article should be deleted, if the standards which were applied to this AfD were also applied there. The grape producers of upstate New York that contribute to far greater quantities of Thunderbird-quality wines aren't notable because of the volume they produce.--Milowent (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does one distinguish them? Easy. Williamsburg Winery has done something notable by becoming the largest producer in Virginia, dwarfing all other wineries. This is established by reliable sources. Valhalla, by contrast has done... practially nothing. This is also established in the reliable sources put forth in the AfD.

Furthermore, unlike Valhalla, the article for Williamsburg already makes a strong claim of notability by being Virginia's largest producer. If it went to AfD due to the poor sourcing, the AfD would quickly fail because better sourcing is easy to find. The 'keep' proponents for Valhalla had to scrape the bottom of the barrel really hard, and even went so far as to misrepresent 1-liner mentions as "significant" coverage. Such writhing about with sources wouldn't be necessary for an AfD on Williamsburg.

A winery doesn't have to be notable only for the quality of their wines. Bronco Wine Company, for example, is a huge producer of cheap wine in California, notable for growing huge by buying up other (usually non-notable) wineries as they fail.

You asked for an example. You got one. There are others. Valhalla may become notable in the future. But not now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples suck, frankly. The dividing line that those in favor of deletion are drawing is an I know it when I see it thing. What would it take for you to say Valhalla has "become notable" in the future? Because I am sitting here reading Barboursville Vineyards at Murgh's suggestion[13], and I see a winery located near Washington D.C. that gets covered a lot in the D.C. papers, just like Valhalla gets covered in the southwestern VA press. No doubt Barboursville is more notable than Valhalla because it was one of the first modern wineries in Virginia (though "for the first 15 years, Barboursville produced mediocre wine" per the NYTimes, but it gets covered any time someone wants to write about Virginia wine and talk about Jefferson's connection), but then I see paragraphs dedicated to Valhalla in the Wine Spectator article[14] cited in the Barboursville article--with the intimation that Valhalla is among the top wineries in Virginia. (Indeed, Valhalla and its "much-honored Valhalla reds" are also mentioned in passing in that same same NYT article, where a local expert includes Barboursville and Valhalla in his "upper pantheon" of Virginia wines). The sourcing of the Williamsburg Winery article is abysmal at the moment (indeed there are no RS cited). Apparently you believe Williamsburg is more notable because it makes a lot of wine, while I believe Valhalla is notable because SOURCES cover it (not to mention that those sources say its among the best Virginia wine.)--Milowent (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "I know it when I see it" going on here; you are mischaracterizing the deletion proponents. There are weak claims of notability and strong claims. Valhalla makes extremely weak claims. The 'keep' folks keep harping on Wine Spectator while missing the point that a review in that publication doesn't mean much; it's like a restaurant review in Frommer's. The abysmal Williamsburg sourcing doesn't contradict the fact that Williamsburg makes a strong claim of notability and there are better sources out there to support it. If you don't believe me, propose it for AfD and see what happens.

What would it take to include Valhalla, you ask? See Murgh's reply to you above. In addition to what Murgh suggests, a single review by someone like Robert Parker, or winning a notable international event, or information saying Valhalla is Virginia's top international exporter, are things that would merit inclusion. As I said, it might qualify in the future, but not now. There simply isn't a claim of notability to be made. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What it takes to include Valhalla are reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage. Please remember that WP:N and "notability" in the traditional sense are different. It doesn't matter if Robert Parker covers it or some rag as long as the rag meets our definition of reliable. Your whole argument shows a misunderstanding of our inclusion policies. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The close was interpreted fair and within policy. That leaves the open item of merged material and any outstanding GFDL issues. If there are any I would suggest somehow merging the history into the parent article or instituting a protected redirect with the history in tact. There are multiple options available for retaining the edit history here, they could even be copied over to a talk page for attribution (if it is even warranted or necessary). What we don't want is to undelete the article and leave a non-protected redirect in place leaving us wide open to a reversion of the closure by a drive-by editor who doesn't know any better leading us to an AFD round two. JBsupreme (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I'm glad the closing administrator listed the reasons he thought the information was invalid. Wine Spectator is clearly a notable magazine. Notability is not limited by age. So, his argument that 2.Two of their wines have been mentioned at WineSpectator.com ten years ago., doesn't make sense. How long ago it was mentioned, isn't relevant. 4.Four paragraphs from an interview with the owners at winespectator.com. Sounds like notable coverage to me. They interviewed the owners because of their vineyard. As for their awards not be notable, a quick search of Google news shows that "The Governor's Cup Virginia Wine Competition is sponsored by the Virginia Wineries Association." For a state that is known for its wines, I think that's a notable enough organization, and if the organization is notable, then so are its awards. Dream Focus 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You evidently missed the deletion debate, and this isn't the place to re-hash the arguments; however: Wine Spectator covers thousands of non-notable wineries. That is their function. A mention in that publication does not create a claim of notability for the subject. I agree the age of the article is irrelevant. Also, please review WP:WINEVENT; the "governor's cup" is not a notable event for a topic having global scope, any more than local/regional competitions in Europe are of concern to Californians. "If the organization is notable, so are its awards"? That's a fallacy; see WP:NOTINHERITED. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I missed the memo that we don't count sources that cover things we think are non-notable. Things are notable here because they are covered. I'd suggest looking at this as a really nice essay on the topic. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and replace with redirect even if the merged material has since been removed, the article should not have been deleted after the merge. A non notable winery can certainly be mentioned in an article about the wine region, as long as information is verifiable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the AVA page and alluded to above in a previous comment, this material is inappropriate for a wine region article. As an active editor in the Wine Project, I can vouch that redirecting a non-notable winery to a wine region article is as worthwhile as redirecting non-notable garage bands or non-notable restaurants to their home cities. Who does that? Wikipedia is obviously WP:NOTDIRECTORY and it makes little sense to have the redirect. The content itself is gross WP:UNDUE weight to have an article on an entire region focus on a particular non-notable winery. Take a look at the hundreds of wine region articles in Category:American Viticultural Areas, Category:Appellations, Category:French wine AOCs, Category:Wine regions, etc. It is like dedicating an entire section of the Chicago article to content about the restaurant chain Uno Chicago Grill (or worse, a non-notable local pizzeria) or a section on the Incandescent light bulb article to notes about the light bulb manufacturer General Electric-wholly inappropriate and not needed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus and restore the article. Both sides had well-argued points, and numerically the debate was split down the middle. There wasn't really a consensus either way. While the closing admin clearly considered everything very thoroughly before pulling the plug, I don't like his heavy reliance on WP:WINETOPIC in the closing rationale, as that's only a proposed guideline at this point. In some ways, the close seems more like an exceptionally well-considered vote to delete rather than an evaluation of the consensus at the debate. That is, he decided which side of the debate was "right," not which side had the stronger argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing statement noted, the article failed to established notability in line with the expectations of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. WP:WINETOPICs is just an emphasis of those core Wikipedia policies and how they relate to winery articles. While it is very easy for most editors to distinguish trivial, insignificant coverage relating to the notability of garage bands, bed and breakfast, local pharmacies and mom & pop restaurants, those same intelligent and good faith editors can have difficulties separating the romanticism of wine with the reality of the matter. Case in point above where one editor is "impressed" with this winery receiving 2 wine reviews from Wine Spectator. Wine Spectator reviews over 10,000 wines every year and throughout it 30+ yr history it has the reviewed wines produced by over 100,000 different producers (many of whom are no longer around). It is rather silly to argue that all 100,000 of those wineries are notable simply because they have been reviewed by Wine Spectator. It is like contending that every bed and breakfast or restaurant that has ever been reviewed by Fodors or Frommers is notable. Again, while it is easy to see that insufficient notability in the context of garage bands, bed and breakfast, local pharmacies and mom & pop restaurants, sometimes it becomes more blurry when dealing with wineries-especially if the editor is unfamiliar with wine topics. The closing admin saw the clear insufficient notability in the context of Wikipedia policies of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV and deleted on that account. The references to WP:WINETOPICs just helps to make what is blurry more clear. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then try to make something else that is exceedingly blurry to me more clear. What is notable about Tintara winery, an article you recently created, if Valhalla is not notable? As far as I can tell, Tintara's claim to fame is that it produced what is currently the oldest existing bottle of australian wine, which is a serendipitous piece of trivia. It only existed as an independent entity for 15 years (1861-1876), one less year than Valhalla's current age. I find nothing in that article that tells me why it is more notable than Valhalla.--Milowent (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm glad you brought it up. This is an excellent example of the night and day notability compared to Valhalla. Tintara story has barely been scratch with lots of fodder for expansion. Now compare these items-

• Tintara was founded by Alexander Kelly (a notable figure whose article hasn't been created yet), an early pioneer in the Australian wine industry. It early years were also influenced by the involvement of several prominent investors including Walter Watson Hughes, Samuel Davenport, and Thomas Elder. There were other influential people involved in the winery as well as the early history of South Australia but I only initially listed the people who had Wikipedia articles at the moment.
• Tintara was one of the first commercial wineries in the McLaren Vale region (Possibly "the" first but the initial reliable sources weren't emphatic on that so I hedged my bets with the wording until a more definitive source could have been found). Today the McLaren Vale is an internationally recognized wine region with consumers finding examples of McLaren Vale wine across the globe. Tintara's role in the establishment of this wine region is substantial. The same can't be said of Valhalla's role in the establishment of Virginia wine industry much less North Fork of Roanoke AVA-wine regions of significantly less notability that are barely recognized even in the United States.
• Current record holder of the oldest surviving bottle of Australian wine, while can be considered trivial, is of significant noteworthiness in the world of wine which places premium on the aging ability of wine. It is far more noteworthy in the wine world then the "trivial" note a winery using a wine cave technique that has been used for hundreds and hundreds of years.
• While Valhalla has only passing references, travel guides and meager coverage even in local papers, Tintara's story has been featured in numerous reliable sources (several of which are in the article such as John Beeston's Concise History of Australian Wine) but we could also add Sotheby's Wine Encylopedia, Andre Domine's Wine, Katherine MacNeil's Wine Bible, Hugh Johnson and Jancis Robinson World Atlas of Wine, several books by James Halliday, Catherine Fallis Wine Encyclopedia and several more featured in this Google Book search. These are just the good old fashion published book reliable sources (and we're talking dozens of serious wine topic and reference books not just travel guides like what Valhalla had). I haven't even scraped the surface of the numerous reliable sources in news archives, magazines and other online reliable sources.

Now of course we shouldn't expect every winery to have such an overwhelming claim to notability as Tintara but they should at least have something. This is the stark contrast with Valhalla Vineyard which had nothing to establish its notability according to Wikipedia's policies of WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. They haven't done anything beyond simply existing and even then they haven't even a drop in the bucket of "significant coverage" compared to truly notability wineries. Valhalla is not even close to being in the ballpark of a notable winery. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be night and day to you, but all I see is your subjective opinion of relative importance, with perhaps a dash of OR. The same trivia about an old winery that existed for 15 years in the mid-19th century repeated 20 times does not make it more notable. You can say Tintara was one of the first commercial wineries in a section of australia, and I can point to Valhalla's coverage about its cave and being noted as perhaps one of the best wineries in Virginia, the state with the fifth highest wine production in the US. And your claim that "Valhalla has only passing references, travel guides and meager coverage even in local papers" is simply distortion--you keep mischaracterizing the references to suit your intended result. I looked at the Beeston references to Tintara as a sample and find it to be no more significant than profiles of Valhalla, it simply recounts older events. I was looking through some old closed AfDs earlier and see numerous examples of yourself and other WP:WINE folks losing AfD nominations for wineries less notable than Valhalla, because those wineries were also the subject of multiple references and an aggregate of significant coverage. That should be the applicable standard, which Colonel Warden touches upon above. True, sometimes these articles get deleted when few people are watching, and perhaps this one will stay deleted. But for the life of me I cannot tell which you will say should stay and which should go.--Milowent (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're starting to drift way off topic here but Tintara still exist. It has since 1861. Granted it has changed ownership hands but it is still an independent entity making wine in the constellation portfolio. Anyways, the root of the issue is and has always been WP:SIGCOV. A published book on the comprehensive history of Australian wine is more than just a "recording older things". Do you really think Mommesen's History of Rome is just a "recording of older things"???? Beeston's book is one of just the the 100+ potential reliable sources and significant coverage that Tintara. The meagerness of Valhalla coverage and the characterization of passing casual references, marketing material, travel guides and local, isolated coverage has been thoroughly dissected to the extent that it could merit its own sub-page of the AfD. But again, the vast gap between Valhalla and truly notable wineries is staggering. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "vast gap" between Tintara and Valhalla, I just see you saying there is. Tintara is just a place where some wine is made, that used to be in business for itself from 1861-1876, and was sold when it met financial difficulty. Its older, so those facts have been mentioned more times in 150 years than perhaps Valhalla has been in 15. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion and send to incubation. Surprised it was not asked for nor considered. The very lengthy discussion underscores the number of Wikipedians willing to improve the article and the project... and improving is why we're all here, isn't it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone interested in a "cliff note" version of the AfD discussion about the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources for Valhalla Vineyards is welcome to review User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards. As far I can tell I've listed every source/claim that has been put forth by proponents of this article for what makes this winery notable. I think after reviewing these sources/claims it is clear that if this winery was just another restaurant, bed and breakfast inn, drug store or individual church, there is no way that this same type of meager coverage would be considered acceptable in establishing notability. I think it is also clear that after doing his own extensive and thorough review of the AfD and these types of weak claims of notability, the closing admin was quite right in upholding the consensus of Wikipedia's policies on WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oy vey! While perhaps useful for this little discussion, that you spent the time to create this is ridiculous! You could have created two more articles of Tintara-level quality by this point. Having to go to this length shows why this close should have been ("when in doubt") no consensus at best. This is not every existing source about the Valhalla winery; only a few of the keep votes have added references to the article or cited them, and we all know not everything about any subject is online, online-only research is a proxy to make a determination of probable notability. The standards you are applying clearly represent a split among editors when it comes to wine articles.
• One of the notability claims you discuss which I will address is "Valhalla is notable because it was featured in articles in local/regional papers like the Roanoke Times & Wilmington Star News" (I think Wilmington, North Carolina is hundreds of miles away though)-- which you discount. However, this is exactly the type of coverage which is used to support notability of significant topics in any local area throughout Wikipedia. Things important in the UK are often only covered in the UK (e.g., randomly, Red Pepper (magazine)), yet they have articles. The same prevails throughout wikipedia, so discounting repeated local coverage of an subject (and there are tons of regional press mentions of Valhalla of varying significance) is contrary to longstanding consensus, in my view. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination) (essentially this is the "pizza place" type of keep which you decry), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanicsburg HS Marching Band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere Discount Mall, Mzoli's (oh who can forget this one!), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul E. Reinhold Agricultural Fairgrounds (here's a local fairgrounds example), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennington Triangle, etc.)
• Applying this observation more generally to wineries, many prior AfDs of this type have been unsuccessful. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byington Vineyard (Oct 07 Nom by Agne, kept); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewell Towne Vineyards (Jan 09, kept, almost an identical case for a winery in New Hampshire); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Camp Vineyards (kept aug 08, after nom was withdrawn, though nominator noted, "while I disagree that this organization has anything notable enough to distinguish itself from thousands of others like it, and therefore doesn't warrant an article"); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bure Family Wines (kept, nov 2009); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery (kept as no consensus, aug 08); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coriole (kept, June 09, interestingly, Agne's vote varied between weak delete, neutral and finally keep); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markham Vineyards (May 09 keep with a "weak keep" from agne, though looking at the article provides no clue why this one was a keep vs. valhalla); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine (nov 09 nom by agne, quite a mess of an AfD really)

So I written far too much and this isn't Afd round 2. It all goes back to my initial comment in this discussion that it was admin discretion to close as keep or no consensus, but not delete.--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure you got that right? You don't mean admin discretion to close as delete (based on policies or guidelines) or no consensus (based on vote-counting)? Tomas e (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument to keep, even if the "other crap" has been subject to prior AfDs. Just because other AfDs failed when they shouldn't have (failing for the same "exception to policy" reasons put forth for Valhalla), doesn't mean this one should have failed also. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and other places note, "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." What my review of those AfDs tells me is that a few editors are interpreting our policies more narrowly than other editors. E.g., I learned that you are in favor of deleting vast numbers of winery articles, but your views do not represent the general consensus I saw. What I see getting deleted are what appeared to be blatant advert articles without sourcing.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AFD; sufficiently different to previous version. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? There is no different version then what was already debated at AfD. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've posted that to the wrong DRV, sorry. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse well-reasoned close. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus I appreciate the closer's detailed comments, but don't agree that the various sources can't be used to meet WP:N. Nothing in WP:N discounts local sources (WP:CORP yes) and the coverage in a significant magazine in the field shouldn't be discounted. There were enough sources and a strong enough set of arguments to keep that delete wasn't a reasonable outcome. Now, all that said, what the heck is going on here? If feel like I've walked into the middle of some larger argument without an clue as to what that argument is. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on is that some people are discounting WP:SIGCOV and thinking that a few casual mentions and isolated local coverage equates to being significant coverage. Valhalla vineyards wasn't "covered" by Wine Spectator. They never did any featured articles or dedicated anything close to extensively coverage. Wine Spectator reports on notable and non-notable wineries alike, just as restaurant review and travel magazines report on numerous non-notable restaurants and bed and breakfast inns. The extent of this "coverage" was 3 wines reviewed (as Wine Spectator have done for over 100,000 wineries). They gave a few lines of mention in a general United States overview of 617 wines from 31 different states and in a regional section of their 2003 harvest report-both part of a larger series that gave the same level of casual, brief mentions to hundreds of wineries. These are small snippets of general news reports, like interviewing neighboring business how they feel about the road construction nearby. Individual churches like Christ Memorial Lutheran Church (St. Louis) receive this same type of brief, casual mention in Christian magazine like The Lutheran. But I sincerely doubt anyone would say that individual church is notable because their pastor was one of several dozen other Lutheran pastors interviewed for brief snippet on their views on various Lutheran issues--and Christ Memorial has received FAR more coverage in The Lutheran than the 4 little blurbs Valhalla got in the Wine Spectator. WP:SIGCOV is not about counting footnotes, it about whether or not the coverage is significant. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per the GFDL and per policy based reasons for keeping. User:MichaelQSchmidt produced sources to justify keeping the article as did User:Vivisel. The final argument in the discussion was to keep per WP:N. Indeed, the final three editors to comment argued to keep following persuasive reasoning presented by User:Colonel Warden. My own read of the discussion beyond that is that there is no pressing or urgent need to delete it, i.e. to protect the public from it. If it is not a hoax, not libelous, and not a copy vio, while at the same time is verified through multiple sources and several editors in good standing see merit in the article's inclusion and are willing to look at and add sources, then per Wikipedia:Editors matter and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, we WP:AGF and allow them to continue to improve it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The version that was speedily deleted appears to be sufficiently different to the previous version that G4 does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong DRV? Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, now struck as irrelevant to this discussion (about which I hold no opinion). Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete this article. One issue I noticed in this debate was how the "delete" votes repeatedly emphasized that the winery was not extraordinary or different than other wineries, and thus does not belong on Wikipedia. However, this is not the case. Notability is determined by WP:GNG / WP:N. Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s essay, User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not fame nor importance sums this up quite nicely. Another issue was that the "delete" voters believed that the sources were insufficient. I reviewed the sources, such as this and this, and largely agree with the opinions advanced by the "keep" voters, namely those by Colonel Warden, ChildofMidnight, and Milowent. These sources provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. As opinions were equally divided on whether or not the sources established notability, the close should have been "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as AfD is not a "vote" determined by a tally of yays and nay, so too is WP:SIGCOV not a bean counting exercise of counting little blue numbers. Significant coverage is...well coverage that is significant-not something that every person/place/thing can get. As extensively detailed in User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards and noted by every single WP:WINE member who happened to comment on the AfD, the coverage of Valhalla Vineyards is far, far from being significant compared to what truly notable wineries receive. At its heart, a winery is nothing more than a local small business (especially one such as Valhalla whose distribution is so limited that most people in Virginia will never see their "product" or even hear about them much less the greater United States or World). So the only objective way to view this winery's coverage is to compare to other small local business. Tell me, have you picked your local/regional (something like your 1st link) paper today? How many largely non-notable local businesses (restaurants, churches, drug stores, etc) did that local/regional paper cover in some kind of article? Today my Seattle Times had more than a dozen including an article on a new Thai restaurant that was much larger and more detailed than Valhalla's Star article. Would that feature in this local/regional paper make that restaurant notable enough for a Wikipedia article? The second link is a trade magazine that includes coverage for tourism and marketing purpose. It has given the same treatment of brief, "bio blurbs" to hundreds and hundreds of wineries as it seeks to promote the "general wine industry" (and its subscribers) as every good trade magazine does. In essence it wants to make Valhalla eventually become notable. It is no different than the various trade magazines for restaurants, bed and breakfast hotels and master plumbers. Would a master plumber who received the same brief blurb of text in a plumbing trade magazine (a magazine that wants to promote the industry and make these plumber-their subscribers-notable) then be considered notable based on this scant meager coverage? Would any other type of local business with those same type of meager 2 links you posted above be considered notable? I think the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Just as the answer to whether or not Valhalla Vineyards has received significant coverage is also a resounding no. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV is for evaluating the consensus in the debate. While I sympathize with your arguments, I can't see the consensus in the AfD to delete the article. It's true that this topic may not pass the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), but many participants believed that the sources allowed it to pass WP:SIGCOV. They believed that local sources should not be discounted and the other sources reinforced the winery's notability. When this occurs, and when neither side has stronger arguments for deletion/retention, the article should be kept by default. Cunard (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not even talking about WP:WINERY but purely just WP:SIGCOV. As made abundantly clear in both the AfD and in the summary User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards, Valhalla Vineyards does not have the significant coverage that merits a Wikipedia article. If this was any other local, small business like a restaurant, drug store, church, bed and breakfast, etc this type of meager coverage would be a no-brainer. None of them would have survived an Afd, much less a DRV, with this type of weak sourcing. So why give a winery a free pass on notability? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The "keep" participants of the debate believed that the sources provided did pass WP:SIGCOV, and I agree with them. Local sources should not be disqualified as long as they are reliable sources in that a) each have an editorial board that fact-checks the articles and b) the articles do not read as advertisements. The participants argued that the depth of coverage in these sources was enough to establish notability. Wikipedia is not paper, so the coverage of local businesses is acceptable as long as they have sufficient sources. Cunard (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm...many of the participants of the debate, including all the participants who happen to be part of WP:WINE and actively are exposed to the subject matter as well as notable and non-notable wineries alike, have looked at this meager evidence (exhaustively see- User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards) to see that it is abundantly clear that Valhalla does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Local sources are not disqualified but their WP:UNDUE weight must be considered. Local/Regional sources give WP:UNDUE weight to local/regional businesses and issues. That is a common fact and if a local, small businesses claim of notability is built largely on those sources that is a HUGE redflag that they are not notable. Couple this with the fact that any non-local/regional coverage is scant, brief casual mentions that nearly any mom & pop restaurant, church and bed & breakfast can get, you have one overwhelming case that this entity does not have the type of multiple reliable sources that deal with this subject in enough detail (i.e. not casual and not trivial) to be considered significant coverage. Again this is not about "bean counting" sources. Otherwise Wikipedia would be flooded with entries on every local restaurant, bed & breakfast, drug store and church that ever existed. They all have the same type of meager coverage Valhalla does. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your arguments have merit, but many users in the AfD do not agree with them; their arguments are as valid as yours. As such, the debate could only have been closed as no consensus, not delete. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, no. AfDs are not a vote count. AfDs are closed with regard to the merits of the arguments. The 'keep' proponents did not put forth arguments that held up under scrutiny, as was painfully evident in the AfD debate, and also above. That the closing admin evidently put much thought into the decision, as evidenced by his comments, indicates that the AfD was closed properly. This discussion started out as an argument about restoring content to another article. Let's keep on topic, shall we? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that AfD is not a vote count, and in no way did I say that it was. The arguments for retention and the arguments for deletion are equally compelling, so a "no consensus" close would be the most accurate representation of consensus. And no, this discussion did not start out only as a discussion about restoring the article for GFDL purposes. In his in deletion review nomination, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) wrote that the close should have been either a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome. Cunard (talk)

As with many claims of the keep-argumenters, it stands that just saying it doesn't make it so. Quite a few of us felt to the contrary it was a quite straightforward Delete outcome (you know, WP:SIGCOV outweighing the plenty who don't take into account the actual policy) with a reasonable possibility of no consensus as a consequence of some passionate appeals. As it happened, the closing admin had eyes on the details and wasn't distracted by some fairly exaggerated language. Do you find that tourist guides constitute WP:RS? Do you think the solitary sentence "Even in the commonwealth, it is hard to find the much-honored Valhalla reds (like a cabernet franc called Gotterdammerung and a shiraz) that Dr. James Vascik, a neurosurgeon, produces 2,000 feet above the Roanoke Valley" is considered significant coverage? Please see WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards for point-by-point scrutiny of the list of insufficient claims. MURGH ^disc. 11:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV explains what is meant by significant coverage: "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.". This is what we have in the various sources presented. To refute these you would need to demonstrate that none of them have "editorial integrity" so that they are not reliable. Our usual standards are to discount blogs and other self-published media but to accept professional works of the kinds presented. To go beyond this and say that so-and-so is a travel writer not a wine writer and so not acceptable goes beyond the scope of our written guidelines. Deciding on the facts of the matter in this case is for the editors who engaged in the discussion. It is not the admin's job to engage in discussion himself - he is just supposed to summarise the outcome of the discussion and then act upon it. The closer in this case thus exceeded his brief and so the close should be overturned. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I think I may have started the wiki-tussle in the original AFD that continues here, and I regret that I'll never be able to get that time back. (:

But I still feel now as I did then: there's substantial coverage here that goes beyond local sources. Important, I think, is that article listed in the AFD summary as "in a local paper" (#7) was not written by that local paper but instead by an Associated Press reporter, then distributed across the AP wire (as I discovered on LexisNexis). To me - though I'll readily confess to being no wiki-expert - this is not the same as just being in some local paper. I also think the interview with the vineyard owner in Wine Spectator and attendant paragraphs go beyond mere tasting notes.

Beyond that, I think that many of the "delete" votes come from a sense among some that this vineyard isn't a major player in the grand narratives of wine production and appreciation. I'm not a master of wiki policy (or of wine), but it seems to me that the claims they're marshalling to discount pieces of coverage are extrinsic to notability -- and very intrinsic to the wine enthusiast world. (The gravity press system that makes them essentially unique in VA, they say, is just a revival of older Greco-Roman techniques. Being "much-honored", per NYT quote, in Virginia isn't a big deal because Virginia isn't a well-regarded wine region among enthusiasts.)

It doesn't seem correct to suggest that only the leaders in a field are notable (some fields get more broad-based attention and concern than others). And the educated opinion of wine-erati, while certainly edifying, doesn't necessarily determine whom and what our culture at large decides is worth writing about and paying attention to.

Notability guidelines for organizations and companies say: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."" Clearly, "attracting notice" and "worthy of being noted" are not the same thing, and notability is an interplay of the two. But the proponents of deletion, in my estimation, are using a definition of "notability" that skews too far towards "importance in their estimation".

(Edit: Hm, never participated in a deletion review before, and looking over what it's about I see that it's more about whether policy was correctly applied than notability. So I apologize for my ignorance, though I do agree with folks above that there was not a consensus of any kind really.) Vivisel (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every person/place/business/thing has "attracted notice" or been "worthy of being noted". As I mentioned in the AfD, I received a lovely paragraph write up in the 3rd grade for winning a regional science fair. This write up was not only featured in my local paper but also the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Chicago Tribune and Kansas City Star as well as several other smaller paper (It may have even been AP since AP writers often do regional reports that don't get distributed nationally. It is a fallacy to think that because something was written by an AP reporter it was a "national story"). I attracted notice. I did an accomplishment that was "worthy of being noted" but I would never argue that I would merit a wikipedia article based on that. It is clear from Wikipedia policies and guidelines (namely WP:SIGCOV) that notable requires more than just "attracting notice". That coverage has to be significant. I think it is extremely telling that not a single "keep" advocate (in the AfD or this DRV) has been able to answer the repeated question "How is coverage of this winery any different from what most mom & pop local restaurants, bed & breakfast inn and local churches receive?" It is not about "bean counting" sources but whether or not that coverage is significant-not WP:UNDUE, not WP:TRIVIA, not brief, casual mentions but significant. All of those other topics receive the same type of coverage (if not MORE) in travel guides and local/regional papers all the time. Why are people advocating a different standard for wineries that give them a free pass on notability that we don't extend to local restaurants, churches and B&B's? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're strawmanning a bit. I was actually written up in a major regional newspaper when I was 8, but just that happened once. Perhaps if and when I make news in the same field a couple more times, I'll be notable instead of a one-time flash in the pan. Valhalla Vineyards has been written up and recognized multiple times for its work. To equate articles about a single event with a series of articles about a vineyard seems questionable to me. --Vivisel (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was hoping someone would go into WP:ONEEVENT-one event, one thing. While that link relates to BLPs in particular, the concept behind it is very relevant to WP:SIGCOV. If something is truly notable, then it will be notable for more than "one thing", one event and it will be written about in multiple reliable sources. This is the difference between the run of the mill, routine, everyday things and those that are truly notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Now let's take Valhalla....what are some of the stuff that been put forth? The "wine cave"? We have 1 single local/regional paper (written by an AP reported but still regional none the less). One story-WP:ONEEVENT, on a rather mundane topic too boot but still even if we grant that we still are far away from WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV expectations of multiple coverage. Other stuff, the casual, off hand "much honored" NYT quote? A travel writer's regurgitated hearsay of how the locals view the winery? Kinda of common, run of the mill stuff that travel writers report on how locals view local things. Still it is one story-WP:ONEEVENT. All in all, the rest of the meager coverage is just casual mentions that nearly EVERY local restaurant, church and B&B inn receives for simply existing. We could have a WP:DIRECTORY of articles on all these non-notable, local businesses across the globe but there is a reason why we don't--that reason is the difference between this run of the mill, routine, everyday things and what is truly WP:SIGCOV. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SIGCOV page doesn't specify that it must be the main subject of any of the coverage; it only requires non-trivial coverage. Of the sources listed on User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards, in my opinion four meet this requirement: the Wilmington Star News (1998), the Japan Times (1999), and the first two in Wine Spectator (both 2002). The others are either one line, routine news, or are of uncertain reliability. WP:ONEEVENT isn't relevant here, as it is not an event, and other than the Wine Spectator, they were published in different years. Maybe it isn't the most notable business, but it may be notable enough according to the guidelines, and two of those sources were not mentioned as evidence for notability when the AFD debate was closed. snigbrook (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in your estimation would an individual baptist church that was featured in a local/regional paper, noted briefly by a travel writer in another country as part of an overview general interest article on the larger area area, and mention briefly (not in much detail) in a couple article from a Christian magazine about churches, have enough WP:SIGCOV for that individual local church to merit a Wikipedia article? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man argument we need not fear. As we sit here today, we don't have articles on every random baptist church, nor every random winery, nor every random Bed & Breakfast. --Milowent (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But ah....what separates a "random winery" from a notable one? And how much different is that from what separates a "random baptist church" from one that has sufficient WP:SIGCOV to merit an encyclopedia entry? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether the sources are sufficiently reliable and independent, the reason it was chosen for inclusion in the article, and the purpose and intended audience of the article, so maybe it would be enough (and there are many articles in Wikipedia that have less coverage than that). That would probably make it more notable than a "random baptist church". snigbrook (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just come out and say it: I think a baptist church with the level and nature of coverage that these vineyards have had would be notable! Vivisel (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Which is why I'm glad to see that the consensus is to overturn the deletion. I know there are winery articles in the project for wineries which are truly non-notable, but this isn't one of them.--Milowent (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to speculate about baptist churches as there are numerous articles about them. For comparison purposes, see Category:Baptist churches in Virginia. The sourcing for these is nothing special and so it still seems that the article in question was treated too severely, beyond our usual standards. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get this article reinstated now?--Milowent (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought the original AfD had "no consensus" based on numbers, them I'm not sure how you could think there is consensus here based on numbers-especially considering that the original GFDL violation which ushered this DRV is no longer an issue. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this DRV is nine days old and still open for a reason, I think (and that reason may be they hate both of us for making it so long :-) ). I think the consensus is definitely in favor of overturning here, but, more importantly, if it was doubtful, we should not be deleting, which is exactly what happened in the AFD. Of the substantive "endorse" votes here, most come via WP:WINE and rely on proposed guidelines that have not been adopted, and which the other editors have noted would apply a different standard than is applied elsewhere. And while I hate to suggest it, a "relist" could also be the outcome here, where the article is given a chance to be improved (during a new AFD) with all the cites which have been found and which were never added.--Milowent (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that there will be consensus based on numbers, and it wouldn't be appropriate to use that as a reason to keep the article deleted. Although consensus is important, policies and guidelines were the reasons for deletion, and the topic now appears to meet the relevant guidelines and policies. Additional sources have been cited and the arguments here in favour of keeping the article are more specific than those mentioned at AFD. Also why is the "original GFDL violation" (or whatever it is) not an issue? snigbrook (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The many thousands of words expended in discussion seem out of all proportion to the notional benefit obtained by deletion, whatever that may be. The pressure to include this topic can only grow as the sources continue to accumulate. Today, I bought a substantial wine atlas by a noted wine expert. This covers the entire globe but still finds space for an index entry for this establishment and lists it as one of the notable wine producers in Virginia. When major reference works of this sort see fit to include this, it seems absurd that we should so strain at the gnat of including it too. What is the problem here - it is really quite baffling? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who owns the Oz Clarke book you bought, I can tell that easily 60% (at the most generous level) of the wineries he list are not notable. Some are simply his personal favorites and others are added their to just to list something from the region. The key word here is list. Most winebooks add a WP:DIRECTORY feature of list of businesses in a particular wine region just as most travel books add a directory list of restaurants and hotels. If you noticed, Valhalla has nothing but the scarest of mentions in this list. No details, no coverage. Just a mention. The same type of thing any corner street hot dog vendor or bed and breakfast inn gets in travel books. Being included in a directory list is not a strong claim for notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sumary of this DRV. I feel that I should recuse from closing this DRV, since I'm the principal author of WP:MAD and its recommendations are partly at issue here. However, I've read this endless debate and feel able to provide a neutral summary for whoever wishes to close it. As I see it, there are basically five issues: one, that the original placement of material from the deleted article in North Fork of Roanoke AVA without attribution was a violation of the project licenses; two, that North Fork of Roanoke AVA was not a great merge target anyway, given that this is just one vineyard of many in the AVA; three, that no mention of the merge was made in the AfD close, somewhat clouding whether its status is as part of the close or as a separate editorial decision (a problem that has spread to North Fork of Roanoke AVA, including some unfortunate edit warring); four, that, despite the exhaustive list of sources in the AfD, a couple more have emerged during this debate that, while not definitive, are not insignificant either; and five, that some participants here feel that the sources cited in the original AfD were sufficient to overcome the delete arguments. Note that at present, the offending material is in the target article, and thus we have a current license violation (kudos to Agne27 for correctly removing it, troutslap to Colonel Warden for repeatedly putting it back: a basic DRV principle is that copyright trumps process). I see three options: endorse deletion and remove merged material as undue weight anyway; overturn on license grounds only and leave a redirect; or overturn to no consensus with a new AfD (lord help us) at editorial discretion. There is no firm consensus at this time for any of these options, so it's to some extent a matter of discretion; the only thing that's completely unacceptable is the status quo. Chick Bowen 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If the merged content is removed, it should be done via deletion as I've described in previous comments. If the result here is "overturn to no consensus", I think that the merged content should still be removed: 1) with the full Valhalla Vineyards article restored, no content is lost; 2) the edit history of North Fork of Roanoke AVA will be cleaner; and 3) it will prevent "Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Merge and delete" at a future AfD. I will follow up with the DRV closer if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked for details of other vineyards in the North Fork of Roanoke AVA and haven't found much. It is therefore not one of many but is outstanding both in the quality of its wine and the abundance of its sources. The facts of the matter are therefore not as Chick supposes. As for the disputed merge; this is what we are here to decide. Pre-empting this decision in order to claim that the matter is settled seems improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  When the argument has been made that merged content requires that the source article be kept despite a delete result, edit warring to restore that merged content isn't the best way to conduct the dispute. One issue at a time. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I should mention this - Valhalla isn't even IN the North Fork of Roanoake AVA! It's near it, but not in it. Its in the Shenandoah Valley, between two AVAs, and not in any proper AVA. The winery however, is recognized as among the best in Virginia, as recognized in many sources outside the local area.--Milowent (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is located close to Roanoake which is in the centre of that AVA, according to the wine atlas that I purchased today. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Roanake is in the area of that AVA, but according to the Virginia Wine website, its outside the AVA. None of this matters to notability, its just a fact to fix up. In states like Virginia, these AVAs are sometimes more marketing vehicles than anything else.--Milowent (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about AVAs (true of California too). I have to admit as a wine editor (and someone who has actually toured Virginia wineries and tried Valhalla wines), I do find it a little odd how some folks in this DRV have rallied around this winery as one of the "best of Virginia". In travel guides, news articles and wine books there are half a dozen other claimants to the title "best of Virginia". According to Sotheby's encyclopedia it is a seeming tie between Barboursville Vineyards and Horton Vineyards, though by the level of praise he gives you would think the author would also put the King Family Vineyards in Crozet up there too as one of the "best of Virginia". Katherine MacNeil cast her votes for Barboursville though she considers Horton's Norton wine one of the best in the state. She also tosses in a third contender of Prince Michel de Virginia as a winery of particular note in Virginia. In Catherine Fallis' encyclopedic wine atlas she list among the regional best Barboursville and Horton. Online the search for "Best Winery in Virginia" brings up several contenders. Though curiously google news narrows it down to just one-Linden Vineyards. However, Jancis Robinson in her Wine Course, Hugh Johnson in his wine atlas and Andre Domine is his 900+ page opus on the world of wine feels that there are currently no serious contenders for the title "Best of Virginia" yet. (If I were to throw my personal WP:OR in, I would go with James River Cellars and Chrysalis Vineyards with possibly Barboursville rounding up #3).

My long winded point is that even a state with so small of a wine industry as Virginia can have several claimants to being among the "best of Virginia" with even WP:RS repeating the claim to boot. It is part of the highly subjective nature of the world of wine. It is the same way each and every city in the US has several contenders for the title of "Best deli", "Best pizza", "Best coffee", "Best burger", etc. A few isolated scattering of mentions, opinionately and subjectively crowns something as the "best of..." should not be a rally flag for notability because there are probably half a dozen other contenders for that same crown. The rally flag for notability should be WP:SIGCOV of detail, non-trivial and non-casual coverage that establishes the winery beyond just simply existing like every restaurant, church or hotel in the world. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY of wineries and every one that has had some POV claim of being the "best of" something anymore than we are directory of every local pizzeria that has received "Best of..." awards. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we shouldn't overemphasize references to a winery's standing in its U.S. state. But as the fifth ranking wine producing state (with well over 100 wineries), having articles on those wineries that meet the GNG isn't going to be that many. Being the best bagel shop in Richmond (do they have bagels in Richmond?) is a different honor than being listed as one of the best wineries in a state with almost 8 million people.--Milowent (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to the US government in 2008 Virginia was 9th in US producing less than 1% (only 0.15%) of the US total wine production. In some ways that does put the global encyclopedic context in place. Most people in the US will never see or hear of any Virginia winery, much less our global readership. It is just as likely that our average reader will hear of the "Best bagel shop in Richmond" before they hear of a winery like Valhalla. I think that is one of the reasons why WP:SIGCOV is so important in establishing a winery's notability beyond just simply existing as a winery, just like any corner street hot dog vendor or B&B inn exist. In the end, the undeniable truth is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we are an encyclopedia and policies like WP:SIGCOV helps us keep our focus on what is truly notable and encyclopedic. A mid-level winery in a state that produces less than a fifth of a percent of a the US total wine production is not notable for simply existing and being mentioned in travel guides and local papers. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in London, on the other side of the Atlantic. The other day I went to W.H.Smith to buy a newspaper. While there, I inspected the books for sale in their January sales. Observing a stack of wine atlases, I picked one up and found that it had good coverage of Virginia and included an entry for our topic. So, I didn't have to make much effort to find this - no searching in specialist libraries or the like - this was a mass market book available throughout the country, thousands of miles away. Wikipedia should aim for this level of coverage because its readership is global and it has no space limits. And, most of all because it is an encyclopedia and so should be comprehensive. Now we can't make bricks without straw and so we need a reasonable level of sources to write an article. But once we have those sources, we're good. The idea that we should be deliberately exclusive and elitist is contrary to our mission as we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and our goal is to present the sum of the world's knowledge. It is not our job to be Simon Cowell wannabees and select the best wineries or bagel shops. This would require value judgements which would be contrary to our principle of WP:NPOV. So, given that we have enough sources to write a short summary of this place, we may do so. And having done so, we should not throw this effort away as this would be contrary to our editing policy. The closer failed to properly follow our policies and so the close should be overturned. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has become ridiculous. The Colonel and other 'keep' proponents have repeatedly committed the error of claiming that the closing was based on some imaginary exclusionary or elitist principles, when in reality it was based on established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which the 'keep' proponents have selectively ignored; instead positioning Valhalla as deserving an exception (supported by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy by some keep proponents).

The fact that the closer quoted WP:WINETOPICS in his decision isn't a point against the closure. That document merely explains existing Wikipedia policies in the context of wine in a logical and sensible way, so it was a convenient thing to quote. Furthermore, the Colonel's argument above conflates an encyclopedia with a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is definitely not a collection of indiscrimminate information. Also, including articles about non-notable or barely-notable wineries does absolutely nothing to enhance the "sum of the world's knowledge" — all that accomplishes is to make this encyclopedia more into a directory. Finally, our objective here isn't to select the "best" wineries. "Best" does not equate to "notable", and "notable" has a very detailed description on Wikipedia.

WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not applicable. What that policy is telling us is that we don't do Yellow Pages stuff like telephone numbers, addresses, prices and the like. But that has not been an issue here. That prohibition definitely does not exclude us from exhaustive coverage of all members of a category and in many subject areas we go to quite amazing lengths to cover every member - places, bacteria, fungi, footballers. Even the much-abused Pokemon get better treatment than you would afford this establishment. This place is notable enough that, even from thousands of miles away, I can accurately tell you many things about it - the proprietor, the grape varieties, the method of production, its history, etc. We have ample material to write an informative article and should be left to get on with it. I attend AFD debates for numerous types of topic and this article compared reasonably well with many others. This is why I continue to press the point - I see no policy justification for excessive WP:ZEAL in the case of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ample material" you get is no different than what any corner street hot dog vendor, local deli, or B&B inn across the globe receives. I lives "thousands of miles" away from London but thanks to the beauty of the internet I can learn all about the lovely Gaby's Deli on Charing Cross Road or just about any other local deli in London, Stoke-on-Trent, Portsmouth, Ipswich, etc. From travel guides to local papers, I can find all these details but there is a reason why Wikipedia is not a directory local delis in the United Kingdom. That is because all these travel guides, brief casual mentions and insignificant coverage in local papers are not WP:SIGCOV that establishes these delis of being anything else other than simply existing as small local businesses-nothing of encyclopedic interest to our global readership. If Valhalla Vineyards was Valhalla Deli in Roanoke, I sincerely doubt that you or the other "keep" proponents would be fighting so hard for this. But for some reason, you folks seem to think that being a winery is cause for a free pass on notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason in principle why Gaby's Deli should not have an article and I will be checking it out. I already mentioned Mzoli's at AFD - a relevant precedent. For another establishment not far from Gaby's Deli, please see De Hems — an article which I saved at AFD when it was casually dismissed as just another pub. Valhalla Vineyards would have been saved at AFD too if it weren't for your wine project block vote. But your wine project does not represent the general consensus, as these other articles show. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you want to write something from scratch about Valhalla in some other article that mentions several other wineries in the area, go right ahead. That, after all, is how most of the sources have treated the winery: a passing mention. There have been no convincing argument put forward yet that the winery deserves its own article. There have been no convincing arguments put forward yet that the article content should be restored somewhere else (which the closing admin erroneously did). However, I don't see a problem in starting over from scratch in an article about the region. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a pretty staunch winery deletionist though, so no argument is going to convince you, despite marshalling majority support, and your winery noms have failed a number of times (as I detailed at some point in this ongoing drama). The keep proponents merely applied the general notability guidelines that applies across the project. Will this DRV carry into day 11? Only time will tell.--Milowent (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for bringing this DRV to an end, this was your 23rd posting in this discussion if I count right. Many of what you call "deletionists" (gash!) are the most experienced among the editors who are working hard on improving Wikipedia's wine coverage (or try to, when there time is not taken up by being sidetracked into meta-activities), while what you call the "majority" seems to consist mostly of editors of other interests. Not that it takes away their right to be heard, but there is something to be said for subject matter knowledge as evidenced by concrete Wikipedia work. Peace, Tomas e (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is a fallacy to call the members WP:WINE "deletionists" just because every single wine editor who has commented on this DRV or the AfD beforehand have all categorically agreed that this winery is not notable. If someone were to nominate a truly notable winery for AfD, members of the wine project would be just as "inclusionists" as the staunchest WP:ARS member. When you are immersed in articles about a particular topics, it is easy to call a WP:DUCK a duck. For wine editors, it is easy to see how Valhalla pales in comparison to truly notable wineries and we have tried diligently to explain our reasoning repeatedly over the AfD/DRV but it is hard to make progress when fundamental wiki policies like WP:SIGCOV are essentially ignored or trivialized. Our concern is not the philosophical debate between deletionist/inclusionist but purely in the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia's coverage of the world of wine. Turning Wikipedia into a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable wineries does not further Wikipedia's mission or benefits the reader. It is that simple. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty, filthy DELETIONISTS! ARRGGHGHGH!! Ok, seriously, we've all covered the same grounds many times over--I think WP:WINE has espoused a position which is at odds from the rest of the project. Y'all disagree. That's just my opinion, and others have articulated it better than I in this debate. What is truly notable to you is undiscernable to the rest of us, and that just doesn't work. I created two winery articles this week, which WP:WINE approved, which is just totally ridiculous to distinguish from this one. And ,Tomas e, I guess this is No.24, and the first post of day 11 of this DRV.--Milowent (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the admin's closing with respect to the question of deletion, no opinion on the questions of copyright and attribution. Having read through the entire AfD (I didn't participate), I can say that I would have !voted delete for substantially the reasons cited in the closing: you don't get "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" out of one sentence in the NYT, a tasting note from ten years ago, a couple of mentions in travel articles, and all the rest. I don't want to rehash all the arguments I just read, but I do think we weigh the availability and thoroughness of sources in the light of experience and in relation to what notable things of the same kind should be expected to have, not against a uniform ideal. That is to say, if a Czech band gets a sentence in the New York Times, it might well be notable; if a Manhattan deli gets a sentence, probably not. If the construction of a hospital in Albany, New York gets two articles in the Albany paper, it's probably not that notable; if it get two articles in the Seattle paper, it's probably notable. If the construction of somebody's house in Albany gets two articles in the Seattle paper, it's likely very notable. And so on. A reality show contestant can get some national press and not be notable, whereas if a history professor got the same press we'd be gaga over how notable she was. I think it's telling that all the people who work regularly with wine topics found that the amount and type of coverage this winery had were very poor in relation to what you'd expect a significant winery to have. _(cont'd)

However, (1) although I would have recommended delete, I believe I would have closed this AfD as a "no consensus." The arguments made for retention didn't stink, they just took a different—less right, but not wrong—view of the cumulative weight of the evidence for notability. (I'm forgetting the arguments that did stink.) Enough people made those arguments that I didn't think the "consensus," or group feeling, of the community was established either way. Yet (2) "consensus to delete" was a reasonable decision by the closer, even if I didn't agree with it. I don't understand DRV to be a de novo review of the closing admin's action, only a review of whether that action was in violation of AfD policy—and it's against policy to close a debate unreasonably, but not to close a debate "incorrectly." It was within reason for the closer to find that the arguments for retention were simply too weak to factor into a legitimate consensus; hand-waving arguments like, The NYT once off-handedly called this winery "much-honored," so it must be notable, "Q.E.D." The closing decision was also not unreasonable in light of the different experience levels of the various AfD contributors with respect to notability of wineries and wine-related articles. I wouldn't have made the same decision, but I can't criticize it as being so far outside the spectrum of reasonable decisions that it must be overturned.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which boils down to: "I believe I would have closed this AfD as a 'no consensus.' " :-) Welcome to DrV day 10.--Milowent (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, checkin' in ... its Day 12 and this is still open!!! (Soon to be Day 13.) Valhalla is the viking word for heaven; and you may not go there if this article is not restored. Just sayin...--Milowent (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]