Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenefick Ranch Winery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Neil (G12 - copyright violation). Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenefick Ranch Winery

Kenefick Ranch Winery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable winery. Google comes up with quite a few results, but none of them seem to be independent and non-trivial. Most appear to be advertising and press releases. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the only hits on Google news are allegations of questionable hiring practices [1].
• Speedy Delete. The first problem is that its a copyvio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work on catching the copyvio. Speedy Delete Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This provides basic information about a winery. What's the point of keeping information from a person who drinks a bottle of wine and decides to look up the maker on Wikipedia? This is an example of the worst kind of application of the notability requirement. --MQDuck 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio issues aside, the article doesn't explain why or how the winery is notable, or give independent non-trivial sources to prove that notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's notable because they produce a product that people buy. A bit of Googling shows that it's discussed on wine websites and so presumably generally available. It may be possible to argue that it's not notable enough (though I would disagree), but what's the point? Try to be more concerned with helping and not hurting Wikipedia than following the policies strictly. --MQDuck 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non- notable winery. Just because people buy a product doesn't make it notable. I went to the store today and bought pens from two different companies but they don't need wikipedia articles either Blahblah5555 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How about you tell me why not? --MQDuck 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Copyvio. Advertisement. Wikipedia is not a directory. Anything else? -- Alexf⁴² 09:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio, advertisement, should probably be speedied. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• My position is still not "delete", but you're definitely right that it reads like an advertisement, and it doesn't really have distinguishable value beyond that. I just find it hard to believe how disinclined people are to recognizing notability. Anyway, can you or anyone else explain to me how this violates copyright? I see "copyvio" thrown around a lot these days. --MQDuck 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted, yet this process hasn't completed. As the only one who voted Keep so far, I'm not gonna bother taking it upon myself to get it overturned, but it should be restored until the AfD process is complete. --MQDuck 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Checking the history of the page, the article was deleted as being as copyright violation from the winery's website, which is ground for a speedy deletion and completely appropriate. To be honest, the AfD was also heading to a a consensus of delete as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.