• Limegreen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agne27 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Bethling (talk · contribs) 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ryandaum (talk · contribs) 22:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Gsherry (talk · contribs) 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• EngineerScotty (talk · contribs) 04:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC). I'm still a beer drinker at heart (beer has the distinct advantage of not costing USD $30--or orders of magnitude more--for a good bottle), but there's a lot of grapes to harvest on this subject. I'll focus mainly on Oregon wine, but probably (definitely) will have lots of suggestions. And since I probably couldn't distinguish a bottle of Grand cru Burgundy from two buck chuck without reading at the bottle :), I'll bring a different (and possibly) skeptical perspective to the party.
• Andrew Dalby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC). Ancient and medieval wines, plus wines I happen to drink
• Amatulic (talk · contribs) 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Balazs.varadi (talk · contribs) 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Esp. Hungarian regions and grapes, with emphasis on mine: Somló and Welschriesling
• Camw (talk · contribs) 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• AVM (talk · contribs) 00:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Symposiarch (talk · contribs) 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• MatthewEHarbowy (talk · contribs) 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Decline newsletter
• Stefan (talk · contribs) 15:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Will try to dedicate some of my limited time to updating wine related pages
• Bduke (talk · contribs) 06:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC). I'll try to help out with Australian wines.
• Wikidemo (talk · contribs) 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Charleenmerced (talk · contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2007
• MIckStephenson (talk · contribs) 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC) mission: introduce the Penedes region, though it may take a little time to ripen ;)
• Mroconnell (talk · contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Theorb (talk · contribs) 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• BullRangifer (talk · contribs) 07:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• FlagSteward (talk · contribs) 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) British ABC, so expect me to counter US bias and fight the corner of any grape that's not sold by Fosters, Constellation or Gallo!
• VanTucky (talk · contribs)
• BodegasAmbite (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC). Still enjoying, learning and contributing :)
• veritasjohn (talk · contribs) Veritasjohn 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Most interested in Champagne page development for now.
• Tomas e (talk · contribs) 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC) I live in Sweden and have contributed several wine-related articles to Swedish Wikipedia. German wines are probably what I know best, but my wine interest runs wide.
• nwinther (talk · contribs) 13:09, 24 August 2007 (CET)
• Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Jmjanssen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Kharker (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Murgh (talk · contribs) 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Lucy456 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Fifuszfc (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 December 2007 I can help by doing translations from Hungarian to English/French/Italian, and vice versa, and by adding pages about the Hungarian wine sector, the systems of geographical indications of European coutries and EU wine policy.
• Nirztak (talk · contribs) 11:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I am interested in expanding information regarding Israeli wineries
• Raineybt (talk · contribs) 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Id love to use this as an opportunity to focus my efforts on Wikipedia, and to expand my knowledge on the subject of wine.
• parkerj242 (talk · contribs) I'm co-owner of a company that imports Georgian wine into the US, and brand new to all things wiki.
• BaroloLover (talk · contribs) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• DeepSouth (talk · contribs)
• Merzbow (talk · contribs) 08:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Genius_babak (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• scyrene (talk · contribs) 20:01 BST, 16 June 2008. Specialist subject: Champagne; I can also check for factual inaccuracies in general.
• Parkwells (talk · contribs) 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Have been working on US Missouri Rhineland, to add counties, towns and wineries associated with this region and two American Viticultural Areas.
• WineCrab (talk · contribs) 2 July 2008: Interested in improving wine information on Wikipedia with a focus on Washington State wines
• Winebuff28 (talk · contribs) 05 August 2006 (UTC) I will help with definitions and industry background from my legal wine career
• Purple-Teeth (talk · contribs) May 30 2008 (UTC)specialized in California and French Wines
• Kudpung (talk · contribs) April 15 2008 (UTC)specialized in Rhône wine and Côtes du Rhône
• Piedmont (talk · contribs) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Decline newsletter
• Airjesse123 (talk · contribs) 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I goto UC Davis and study viticulture and oenology
• Billrobo (talk · contribs) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC) - Australian wine industry exec (for what its worth :)
• CarrieAnne pv (talk · contribs) 11:20, 29 December 2008
• Robyc73 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 02 January 2009 (UTC)
• Gmoore19 (talk · contribs) 20 January 2009 (UTC) I maintain a wine blog on Maryland and Virginia wines:
• PetrusLinx (talk · contribs) 01 March 2009 (UTC)
• RonaldMcWendys (talk · contribs) 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Farscot (talk · contribs) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Interested in improving the information available about Croatian wines
• Prowinenj109 (talk · contribs)
• Pillitteri (talk · contribs) 01:50, 29 June, 2009 (EST)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• SpringSummerAutumn (talk · contribs)31 July 2009(UTC)
• Mwangbickler (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Wine PR and Marketing expert
• GraySpeaker (talk · contribs) 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Wine PR and Marketing expert

[edit] Watchers

This section is for editors who are interested in following the project and maybe receiving our Bi-weekly Newsletter but do not anticipate being very active in contributing to wine related articles.

• Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs) I work extensively in the WikiProject Food and Drink and have interest in this subsidiary project,(I was a regular member here until a couple months ago) I just can't devote full-time to WikiProject Wine, so I will help when I can.
• archibald5 (talk · contribs)
• Theologix (talk · contribs)
• TravelJournalNetwork (talk · contribs)
• Serhio (talk · contribs) mainly interested in subject linked to Moldova wine;
• Simtay (talk · contribs)
• Sugarmagnolia175 (talk · contribs)
• Jerem43 (talk · contribs) - support and cleanup
• Mjquinn_id (talk · contribs) Mjquinn_id (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC) - Templates and Categories.
• IsotopeC14 (talk · contribs) - Scientist at a winery, molecular biology/organic chemistry background.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Inactive Participants

[edit] Wine related AfDs and MfDs

[edit] Valhalla Vineyards

Valhalla Vineyards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: "Valhalla Vineyards" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP nor the Wine Project's internal guidelines for winery notability. Prod was contested over 6 months ago with the promise that the winery was notable and that reliable sources could be found to demonstrate this in the article. After waiting several months and checking to see if I could find the sources, myself, I do not believe there is enough independent, third-party reliable sources to make an article that adequately demonstrates notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• How about the East Coast wineries: a complete guide from Maine to Virginia‎ - Page 308 thing on Google Books, it's a start at least Polarpanda (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a commercial wine guide that basically just confirms that the winery exist--not that it is notable for anything. Every mom and pop restaurant in the world is listed in some commercial restaurant guide (including my local pizza joint down the street in Seattle, Washington), but those restaurant guides alone do not establish notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and further expand and source. Appreciate the Wine Project's proposed guideline. Happily, not all the results of searches [1][2] are listings or press releases.... as many deal with the subject in context and allow consideration for the meeting of GNG criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the second link you posted are essentially all commercial wine guides and looking at the 1st link, I see no reliable sources that indicate the winery has done anything notable. There are only casual mentions of the winery, much like the casual mentions that any mom and pop restaurant receives but clearly do pass the GNG. Another editor seemingly spent 6 months looking for reliable sources to expend the article and obviously couldn't find anything that would help pass WP:CORP. Again, looking at those links you posted is there anything you see there that establishes ANY kind of notability for the winery beyond the simple act of just existing? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. When RS coverage to this sparse degree is all that can be produced ([3][4][5][6]), I think it ought to be deleted (potentially userfied until substantial RS does exist). MURGH ^disc. 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see that the article or the discussion above establishes any notability sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Among the hundreds of thousands of wineries of the world, what have they done do belong among the perhaps 1% or so that motivate a Wikipedia article? Nothing else than the other 99%, it seems after having read the article and the discussion above. If I'm wrong, please insert the relevant information into the article, properly referenced. And be careful when googling for this name, because there is also a Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, which (unlike the wines of this winery) gets reviewed by e.g. Parker. Tomas e (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @228  ·  04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I spent 10 minutes on this and was able to expand. Multiple (not just one) wine spectator pieces and a fair amount of other coverage besides. one local paper, while trying to point readers to the lesser-known wineries in the region, refers to Valhalla in a list of three of the best-known. here's that article.Vivisel (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Pizza and Pasta is often touted as one of "Best Pizza" places in Seattle and also gets a fair amount of local coverage as one of the "Best known" pizza places. But that doesn't mean it is notable enough to pass WP:CORP. While it does have local "acclaim", it has done nothing outside of simply being a pizza place. Same with Valhalla. They have done nothing outside of simply being a winery. They've received "2" mediocre wine reviews from Wine Spectator (which rates 10,000 wines every year). Tasting notes are no different than restaurant reviews-which every single mom and pop restaurant has received dozens of. Of the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage-most aren't even talking about THIS winery but rather the Conn Valley Vineyard's label in California (completely unrelated to this Virginia winery) and the "Unfilitered" entry is also not talking about the winery but rather a golf event at the Valhalla Golf Club in Kentucky. Of the minisicule Wine Spectator coverage that actually does mention the Virginia winery all we have is brief one line mentions when talking about Virginia wine in general, an advert for a grape stomp during harvest the tasting notes. This is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... that WP:CORP spells out as indicating notability. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like you read the pieces cited. You poke fun at the "multiple" Wine Spectator coverage as "brief one line mentions", but if you had read this, cited in the article and linked to in my comment, you'd know that's not the case. Also, more than 2 reviews although I only linked to two. Anyhow! Have a great evening. oh, also, found an AP article on lexisnexis. Vivisel (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Medals in local/regional wine "contests" means absolutely nothing in this case, since they just exist for promotional purposes. This type of information actually does not belong in an encyclopedic article (because of this ongoing AfD I added a "trivia" template to emphasize this rather than to delete it, which I would usually do with similar text), and if this is the only information that can be digged up it's very likely that a winery is not notable. By the way, in most contests, a bronze medal means little more than the wine was liquid (wine that fail to get even the lowest medal are usually those that are so bad that they are considered an embarassment). However, being regularly rated by Wine Spectator and other international wine publications could mean that a winery in fact is notable. In this case I see references to one 1998 and one 1999, and 1998 was apparently the first vintage. If most of their range has been rated by WS in all or almost all vintages since 1998, they could be notable. However, if WS just tasted a few when they were a novelty, IMHO this does not establish notability since it doesn't come above the level of "non-trivial mention" to reach "significant coverage". So have they been regularly rated (i.e. received significant coverage) or not? Tomas e (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I checked out WS (I don't subscribe but search is possible), and the number of ratings is exactly two ("multiple"?). The search engine also finds three tasting notes for three vintages of "Anderson's Conn Valley Pinot Noir Napa Valley Valhalla Vineyards" but as the name indicates that's produced somewhere else by another winery. I previously checked out Wine Advocate, and there it is zero hits, but 11 vintages of Anderson's Conn Valley's Pinot have been rated, so I would consider that producer notable. "Two wines tasted once by WS several years ago, was never repeated, didn't make it into WA" is a formula definitely not enough for notability based on this type of sources, I'm afraid. It's still delete for me. Tomas e (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Wine Spectator piece I linked to above contains an interview with the vineyard's owner and a few solid paragraphs about the winery. 2 AP pieces on nexis, one of which is a 500-word piece completely devoted to the specific winery, which seems to be essentially unique for its production methods in VA (1 of 2 that do it this way, out of how many VA wineries?). I'm no wine expert, and I have nothing to do with the wine wikiproject, I've never been to this winery, and what do I know really. but seems to me that this is a relatively important VA winery, as they go. that may not count for much in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to be notable. Vivisel (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)173.76.21.152 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to login)

Yes, and other than this one piece obviously WS doesn't think it's worth to review their wines again. So obviously not regularly covered by any international wine magazine. A one-time mention by WS is absolutely not sufficient to establish notability. Tomas e (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While it may be unique in the juvenile and still developing Virginia wine industry, it is not not unique or notable in the greater world of wine. In fact, the concept of using gravity to help crush and press grapes has been around since the Greeks and Romans were making wine. This is akin to say that an artisan bakery is notable because they are one of the first to go back to using wood fire brick ovens in a particular city. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that a totality of facts about a given location or object often establishes notability. Just because it's an old technique doesn't negate the fact that in a state with a significant number of wineries, there are only two that produce wine this way, of which this is one. More broadly, as I said, there is an AP article completely dedicated to this winery and another that discusses it (which you removed from the article, incorrectly claiming it wasn't verifiable), there is a Wine Spectator article with several paragraphs dedicated to the winery and a short interview with its winemaker! I may not know how to wield WP:VARIOUSABBREVIATIONS but I am sure there are scads of excellent subjects in this encyclopedia that have not been blessed with that level of press coverage. Vivisel (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(Partial cross posting from article talk) The notability of this subject is so weak that even when someone tries to use what scant mentioning of the winery there are, they have as much success as squeezing water from a stone. I'm still not sure where this "AP" news story is. Considering that the AP's own archive search shows ZERO results for "Valhalla Vineyards" and searching for the exact headline and AP details of the article that was used as a ref comes up with zip, nada, zilch and nothing-I think we have an issue with WP:V. Articles on truly notable subjects do not have this many issues with finding reliable sources that can be verified. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One user's inability to access two Associated Press articles doesn't constitute non-notability, and though I'm a wiki-novice I don't see anything about "if you have trouble finding more than 2 AP articles" in notability guidelines. (Editors: how many pages does this standard mandate deleted?!) As I said on the article talk page, if you don't have a book in your personal library, do you summarily delete citations to it? But I'm done here. I can't believe I've spent this much time on this... Vivisel (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. With a book there is (hopefully) an ISBN which allows anyone to track the book down at a library. This may take time but it is doable. Under WP:V you have to give enough information about your source to where people can find the source and verify the information. If someone post a book ref, without an ISBN number, and there is no evidence to support that the book even exist then it could be removed. The AP archives are fairly extensive, especially for articles that were picked up on the wire. The fact that the AP own archive has no mention of Valhalla shows at the very least this wasn't picked up on the news wire and at most was distinctly local, trivial mention. Considering that this "AP story" is about the results of a promotional marketing event, I strongly suspect this may have just been a press release affiliated with the marketing association. Again, we're squeezing water from stones because there is not the type of of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... This should be a big red flag that we are dealing with a subject of distinctly questionable notability at best. Truly notable subjects don't have this issue. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, The article (one of two) is not about the results of a promotional marketing event. It mentions them, and it is about wine yields in Virginia for the year. I'd encourage other folks with LexisNexis access to check. Vivisel (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient coverage and recognition to warrant inclusion, albeit weakly. People write about wineries and breweries. They're tourist attractions and the welle established ones seem to meet our general guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gift shops and local restaurants are tourist attraction too and frankly you can find more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" for many gift shops and restaurants than you can for this winery. As a member of WP:WINE, I certainly love the topic of wine and ardently want Wikipedia's coverage of wine to be the best on the internet but I can't let my romanticism blend me to the reality that a winery is ultimately a business. There are literally over a 100,000 wineries in the world and much like restaurants and gift shops they are only notable for simply existing. No self respecting encyclopedia would aim to be a WP:DIRECTORY of gift shops and restaurants. We expect more "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" that indicate that these gift shops and restaurants are notable for doing something more than just existing. Why do we give wineries a "free pass" on WP:CORP that we do not extend to gift shops and restaurants? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are oodles of articles discussing this subject in various reliable sources including the Roanoke Times, the Richmond paper, Chalottesville papers, Washington Post, and other such as this one [7] that are very substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oodles? When do brief, casual or distinctly local interest pieces count as "oodles"? And again how is this different from what any gift shop or mom & pop local restaurant receives? The local Star paper link you posted talks about the winery being converted from a peach orchard. How is this notable? How is this more notable than the hundreds of new restaurants converted from some previous (even historic) buildings into new restaurants? How is this winery in any way notable for anything else then merely existing? As I mentioned before, while I am a tireless advocate for expanding Wikipedia's wine coverage, I see no receive why we should disregard Wikipedia's notability policies to give a winery a free pass with the same scant, insignificant and trivial coverage than any mom or pop restaurant receives because it is a winery. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes oodles. Pages and pages and pages of google news returns. I didn't even have to check google books. And let's not pretend that everything printed in reliable independent sources gets included there. Furthermore, I gave a good example of very substantial coverage providing an article entirely about the winery and it's very large wine cave (one of two in the state at the time I think it said?). And your local coverage claims don't wash when the winery is being covered as in this article by major market media outside of its home state. The "local star paper" is a large media market paper in North Carolina. The Washington Post is also a large paper and they've been noted there repeatedly. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify, with links, which general guidelines you're refererring to? This winery obviously fails WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics)? Is there another guideline that you apply which confers notability on all tourist attractions or anything mentioned in a local newspaper??? Or are you just saying that each and every of the world's hundreds of thousands of wineries automatically are notable? Tomas e (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It passes the general notability guildeline and wp:Corp "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There are oodles of cites including the one noted above that isn't local and that gives very substantial coverage to this winery. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are these cites? I see oodles of cites referring to Valhalla Vineyard Pinot Noir produced by Anderson's Conn Valley Vineyards in Napa, but that isn't the subject of discussion here. This particular winery is in Virginia. Kindly point out a couple examples of this "substantial coverage" to which you're referring. I'm not seeing it. I see passing mentions, but nothing really substantial. The Star article you linked to (nice article too) doesn't quite qualify; note that even Wine Spectator routinely profile obscure wineries but such profiles don't make them notable. This winery has a weak claim of notability by being one of the few wineries that perform processing underground, but that in itself isn't so unusual that it warrants an article in an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is an example of why the Wikipedia Wine Project developed the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Even in the article's currently expanded state, I see only facts that bring notability up to local or regional standards, which doesn't quite meet the criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A few seconds of searching demonstrates that this winery is award-winning and so evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above and the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) linked just above your vote. These awards, created solely for promotional purposes are of zero value to establishing notability. Tomas e (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The awards in question are a peer review and being published in a professional journal, constitute a source of the highest quality. Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) on the other hand is not a guideline - please do not misrepresent it. It is just the personal opinion of particular editors and has no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposed guideline is written by people who are knowledgeable about the subject--which is important in critically evaluating sources. Pretty much you just fell for the classic con of marketing above in being "wowed" by a wine competition medal. People that don't understand the wine industry or are not knowledgeable about the subject tend to fall for the same con as well, which is at the root of most advertising and marketing. Winning a medal at these wine tasting events is not like winning a medal at the Olympics. There are literally thousands of these tasting events featuring hundreds of thousands of wines every year. The point is not to pick out the categorically "best" wine but rather to give as many entrants a marketing tool which they can use to "impress" consumers who fall for such things. Take the "Virginia Governor's" cup mentioned in the Valhalla Vineyards article. Of the 233 wines who entered the competition 133 won a medal. As all the wineries entered multiple wines it ended up that every single winery won at least 1 medal. It is like your school's athletic "field day" where everyone gets a ribbon. The "peer reviewed" ones are the biggest scam since winemakers are hesitant to criticize the work of a peer because when it is that peer's turn to review the wines, they fret getting a similarly critically review. (We see this folly play out many times in the "peer tasting" panels of AOC wines in France). Now to know things like this, you have to be the industry and/or be well versed in the subject matter, otherwise Wikipedia will fall for the same scams that Colonel Warden and Vivisel fell for. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent points that the closing admin needs to take into consideration. Remember, this is not a vote. A deletion decision is based on the merits of the arguments presented here, and so far the 'keep' arguments have not held water. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Truly, this can't be emphasized enough, wine awards are as common as state fairs, and the competitions themselves in most cases would not warrant Wikipedia inclusion. A small handful of global competitions are notable, but the vast number of accolades even they award ought not to be relevant to an encyclopedic article. The key issue in this AFD is if the winery itself has received thorough coverage in third-party reliable sources. "Awards" and the odd tasting note need to be disregarded. MURGH ^disc. 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have ample testimony of reliable sources including Wine Spectator, New York Times and Vineyard & Winery Management. Your personal opinion as to the merits of this vineyard are just that - your own personal opinion - and so carries little weight. I have no personal opinion about the place but consider that we have ample support from well-established professional sources and these easily trump your opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense? Did you read what I wrote? The awards are without encyclopedic merit. Please understand. Nothing else. I have no personal bias towards this winery either. Do forgive, I must admit to not having spotted the in-depth coverage in NYT in this mess. MURGH ^disc. 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The NYT reference is not long but it seems significant: "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." If the NYT describes their wines as "much-honored" then their status is evidently notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the Wine Spectator coverage is essentially "tasting notes"? Are you aware that Wine Spectator reviews over 10,000 wines every year and that tasting notes are just as common as the hundreds of thousands of restaurant reviews that take place in magazine, newspapers and online forums across the globe? Having 2 wines reviewed by Wine Spectator doesn't infer ANY degree of notability. They certainly don't come even close to fulfilling any of WP:CORP's expectation for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.... Now let's look at the other "sources"--

• New York Times-Actually where is this? High beam is not coming up with anything. Google is not coming up with anything promising nor does Google news include a NYT article. Ultimately searching the New York Times archive itself also produce zero results.
• Vineyard & Winery Management-Where is this too? Again Google and Google news produce no usable RS. The magazine (which is not very notable itself) doesn't have a good archive search but searching magazine website also doesn't yield any results.
• Washington Post? Let's see, the only mention at all is a brief tasting note on a 2001 Rosé featured the Post's wine review blog? A single tasting note? The WA Post blog does hundreds of tasting notes each year. This is substantial coverage? How is this different from what any mom and pop deli receives?
• What others, let see local regional papers like Roanoke Times? Again brief mentions not much different than local regional papers talking about local restaurants
• These questions can not be asked enough--What has this winery done that is notable apart from simply existing? How is this meager coverage any different than what the tens of thousands of Mom & Pop restaurants receive all the time? How are these meager, casual mentions and tastings notes coming close to the WP:CORP call for "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..."? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ah, I see the NYT time now a general interest piece on Virginia wine where Valhalla gets a casual one line mention in a larger piece that is about a general topic. "Much honored"? A single, off hand comment is what you are staking your claims of notability on? Seriously? It is not even from Frank Prial who is the actual wine columnist for the NYT. It is a casual, brief mention in a travel piece. How many local mom and pop restaurants are "much honored" in their individual communities? I wonder how many articles in the New York Times Travel section notes these "much honored" local interest places? Those types of casual mentions in travel pieces is a very weak pillar to establish notable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So let me see if I can get this new standard of notability you're asserting straight. NYT pieces only count if they're written by the "the actual" wine columnist, AP articles only count if you can find them without using LexisNexis. Novel production methods only count if they're not reviving old ones. Let me just reiterate: We have here 2 Associated Press articles, one completely dedicated to this vineyard, several paragraphs with a brief interview in Wine Spectator, tasting notes in Wine Spectator, 1 mention in the NYT as "much-honored", tasting notes in the Post, and lots of hits in regional papers. We have a vineyard that is one of two in Virginia to use its production method and by numerous accounts is a standout winery in an up-and-coming region. I challenge you to apply that standard more broadly and see how many perfectly good articles come under the knife! Vivisel (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "new standard" of notability being suggested here, only the standard given already in WP:CORP. The key word in that guideline is "substantial". You are mischaracterizing the NYT piece; it doesn't count not because of the author, but because of the insubstantial coverage, which was a 1-line passing mention in a travel article, thus failing WP:CORP. AP articles should be findable from AP itself; I believe you when you say you have found such an article through Lexis Nexis, but if the coverage is anything like the NYT, or a press release, then that would fail WP:CORP as well. You say one AP source is a 500 word piece devoted to this specific winery. Okay... but is that coverage significant in the context of the wine business? Tons of non-notable restaurants get reviewed all the time in notable publications, but that's simply something to be expected in that business, nothing unusual. Tasting notes and local coverage isn't relevant for a globally-relevant topic such as wine.

This whole argument illustrates the extent that WP:CORP doesn't address secondary coverage specifically related to wineries. For that, we have WP:NOTWINE as a proposed guideline. Within that guideline, see WP:RESTTEST for clarification on what coverage is appropriate. That is the position the 'delete' proponents are arguing from.

Now, I admit that there's a weak claim to notability through having a fairly unique production method, but it isn't uncommon to process wine underground under the influence of gravity. They certainly haven't pioneered that method or done anything to make them notable.

A winery needs to have coverage beyond what any other winery normally gets for simply existing, just like a restaurant. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa nelly, there is a lot of strawman flying! Let see if we can clean up some of the straw. First, I was commenting on the silliness of staking a winery's notability on the appearance of the quaint phrase "much honored" as if in one fell swoop the NYT granted divine notability to this humble winery by use of this phrase. The silliness was compounded by the fact that this divine notability wasn't even bestowed by the NYT wine writer. Second, the only consideration we are making is WP:CORP expectation of significant, independent coverage. If you notability rest on an obscure AP article that obviously wasn't even picked up on the newswire, then you are falling far short of WP:CORP's standards--whether or not you meet "my" standards is irrelevant. Third, it is is not "novel" if it has already been done before. That is kinda self evident. You could start a strange, new online "wiki" thing tomorrow but it will not be "novel". Fourth, yes the Wine Project does hold wine article strictly to Wikipedia policies. We don't give a rat's @$$ about this whole "inclusionist vs deletionist" thing. We only care about crafting a quality encyclopedia and we have numerous "perfectly good articles" to show for it. There is a reason why every single WP:WINE member that has contributed to this discussion has recommended delete. It is because we are constantly knee-deep involved in wine related articles and are intimately familiar with the fact that there are tens of thousands of wineries in the world and a scant few are truly notable. As abundantely evident by the painful attempts to squeeze water out of the rocks of meager reliable sources and significant coverage--this winery is categorically not one of the scant few wineries that are truly notable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other deletion proposals

Please list deletions, other than AfDs and MfDs in the appropriate section below.

[edit] Proposed deletions

• Aur-Vin (winery)
• Coriole
• Palotai Vineyard and Winery

[edit] Speedy deletions

[edit] Articles proposed for merging

[edit] Categories for discussion

Could the category Category:Wineries by country (with 18 countries) include the pages in Category:Wine producers which only has 4 countries, and seems to be a duplicate category as some (all?) are Wineries? Hugo999 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be the other way round? A winery is specific type of wine producer. I wouldn't object to merging both categories into wine producers. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images for deletion

[edit] Templates for deletion