Wikipedia talk:Notability (wine topics)

Off to a good start

I split off the relevant section from WP:WINEGUIDE and put it here, then rearranged expanded this article to include several sections corresponding to article topics that may have notability concerns. The eventual objective here is to promote this article to a guideline, as a child of Wikipedia:Notability.

A couple of sections are still blank, and others need further expansion. Please edit/revise/discuss as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I changed "The following criteria confer notability on a wine of specific brand, varietal, blend, or vintage, and by association the winery or winemaker" but now not really sure what it meant, what does the "of specific brand, varietal, blend, or vintage" add?

Also need to think about the relation ship between wine, winery, vineyard and winemaker. Do not think that notability should be inherited. --Stefan ^talk 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to phrase that myself. It originally referred to the "notability of a wine", but "wine" is such a generic term that can mean a category of wine, a varietal wine, a specific label, or a vintage. I didn't want the reader to think it applied to "notability of Cabernet Sauvignon wine", for example, but rather "notability of Ridge Vineyards 1998 Syrah".

If a wine is notable, I think it's reasonable that by association, the entities involved in creating that wine gain notoriety as well. However, it doesn't go both ways: A notable winemaker/producer doesn't necessarily make notable wines (Gallo, Bronco Wine Co, and the like). ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Think Agne did a good job of it! But I still think it is problematic to describe when the wine, winery, winemaker or vineyard is notable due to the notability in e.g. a wine event. --Stefan ^talk 01:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the Winemaker/Winery relationship is one we want to hone in on. I can see a parallel to a music band where while the band is notable, the individual members might not be notable themselves to warrant separate articles. But I think this is because anyone can be part of a band and there is generally not a rigorous application process for someone to attain their position. Conversely, there are some position where by the mere act of attaining that position confers sufficient notability. Take for instance the CEO of any Fortune 500 company, the general manager of any sports team or an elected official. Their notability is intimately tied into the mere fact that they attained those positions. Could this happen with wine? There are only so few truly prestigious winemaking positions available among the scores of winemakers in the world. Could our thinking on this eventually evolve to where someone being named head winemaker of the prestigious Penfolds Grange, Chateau Lafite-Rothschild or Screaming Eagle become notable just on merit of attaining that position? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but notability by wikipedia definition comes almost by default if you attain that position since you will have lots of press. --Stefan ^talk 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to hone in on wine/winery. Not really sure what I think yet, more than that this is complicated.

• I do not agree with "Event → Wine → Winemaker (person) → Producer (company) → Region" statement,
• I do agree with "Under most circumstances, details of individual wine brands and labels should be included under the umbrella of the main winery article "
• Later is says "Participation in a significant wine event like Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 or Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 confers notability. Significant wine events are notable enough to merit their own article, and affiliation with them adds degrees of notability to the associated wineries." says that the Wine businesses gets notable if the wine is in a significant wine event, so now both the wine and the Wine businesses gets notable by the same event?? and this is basically the same criteria that we have for specific wine above and unconsistent with "Event → Wine → Winemaker (person) → Producer (company) → Region"

This needs to be clarified, I say go with Wine in event makes winery notable, wine can only be notable if the winery is notable. But I know that someone can probably come up with an example that proves that this does not make sense all the time, say that e.g. grange was a one-hit-wonder in the 50:ish and penfolds had went under, grange should still be notable, but not the winery?? --Stefan ^talk 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the "notabilty chain" in there as an experiment to encourage discussion.

I don't see the inconsistency you think you have identified. A significant event confers notability to the wineries, because of the notability flow in the diagram. The wines entered into the event are notable by association with the event. A winery that makes a notable wine is also notable for making a notable wine. The later section focuses on wineries specifically, so the "wine" link is skipped in the description you quoted, but it is still consistent. Notability flows from a notable event.

The point of that diagram is to explain that notability is conferred by association, but the flow is one-way only.

Looked at in reverse: A notable region doesn't make a winery within that region notable. A notable winery doesn't make a winemaker employed there notable. A notable winemaker doesn't mean a specific wine he made is notable. And a notable wine entered into an event does not make the event notable.

Going with the flow: A notable wine event indicates the competing wines have notability. Notable wines confer notability on the winemaker. Employing a notable winemaker makes the employer notable. Having a notable winery within a region adds notability to the region, although recognized regions are notable on their own.

Notability need not flow the entire length of the chain, however.

Does that help? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I strongly suggest you drop or rework the college athletes example. There currently is no consensus that college sports players can't be notable for playing sports. What there actually is is a consensus that college players are not automatically notable, whereas pros are automatically notable. However, that doesn't mean no college players are notable unless they "go beyond being sports players." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit in light of your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundant heading?

Isn't the recent heading change to "Wineries and wine businesses" redundant? A winery is a wine business.

All the text in that section applies to wineries, wine merchants, wine distributors, and wine producers. I attempted to ensure that the phrasing of sentences in that section was generic enough to cover any wine business, not specifically wineries. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The two terms are not completely interchangeable though they are obviously related. All wineries are wine businesses but not all wine business (merchants, distributors, etc) are wineries. Considering this proposed guideline would more often be applied to wineries it is imperative that "winery" be included in the heading so that "non-wine" people in AfD discussions and what not can quickly find the pertinent information. The term "wine business" in relation to wineries is not common usage since most people simply refer to wineries as "wineries". But we can't simply leave the heading as "wineries" since we are expanding the scope to other wine business so hence the compromise. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

This page is contrary to policy: WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. It adds no value to our general notability principles and so should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well in all honesty, you sort of just proved this proposal's worth with your comments in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards. This proposal is written by people knowledge about wine and the wine industry which puts them at a favorable position in order to judge sources and topics more critically then people who are lacking that knowledge. As you demonstrated in the AfD, when people lack that knowledge they tend to fall for things like the classic marketing ploy of being fooled by the impressiveness of winning "medals". As I explained also in the AfD, advertizing is dependent on people falling for the same ploy (so don't feel embarrassed, you're in large company) which is why peers and promotional associations even do these tastings. Instead of having the "noble vision" of trying to select the categorically best wine for the sake of consumers, they instead want to ensure that their members or entrants get as many marketing tools as possible. So we have things like the Virginia Governor's Cup wine tasting where 133 out of 233 wines entered won a medal with essentially every winery that entered walking away with some shinny new toy to dangle in front of unknowing customers in their tasting rooms. If you're interested, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting article recently about the "randomness" of how winners are selected and why wineries still enter these tastings because of the marketing benefit. But again, this is not common knowledge which is why proposals such as this, written by people with specialized knowledge of the subject, are indeed valuable. Thank you for helping to demonstrate that. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The WSJ article is a good one in demonstrating that de gustibus non disputadem est in this matter. In other words, wines do not have objective qualities for our purposes and experts have no special talent for assessing them. Wine is thus like, modern art, say - an arbitrary matter of taste and influence which is determined by those who have control over it - dealers, curators and rich collectors. It is therefore no surprise that vested commercial interests are significant in determining what the world thinks and writes about wines; it is only to be expected. What remains is the problem of deciding which wines we include. Your putative guideline makes much use of the word significant but this adds no value because it just begs the question - what is significant? All we can go by are the extent and quality of the sources for a given vinous topic. This is the method of the general notability guide and I don't see that your guideline adds to this in any useful or sensible way. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant point. 'Significant' is the term used in the lead sentence of the official guideline WP:CORP. If you have a problem with that word, take it up on the talk page of that guideline. There is no reason why a guideline about wine topics can't use the term in the same context. This guideline simply provides guidance of what constitutes 'significant' for wine-related topics. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First, WP:CREEP is an essay, not policy; it's somebody's opinion. Referring to WP:BURO is a non-sequitur. Nobody is proposing more bureaucracy, just a document, like many other official notability guidelines, to clarify notability issues around a particular topic.

Second, the assertion that this proposed guideline "adds no value to our general notability principles" flies in the face of other established specific notability guidelines for criminal acts, academics, films, etc.

Rather, this Wine Topics guideline enhances the value of the general guidelines by clearly explaining how those principles apply to specific wine topics. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors keep trying to create specialised guidelines for notability and they tend to fail to be accepted more often than not. And is there an unsatisfied need for this? The current AFD is the first vinous topic I can recall seeing at AFD and I have been patrolling it for years now. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an unsatisfied need as evidenced by the wine topic articles that continually get deleted. Many of them are speedily deleted, or deleted resulting from prods, and some make it to AfD.

Evidently you haven't been patrolling AfDs carefully. Besides the speedies and prods, I can think of several vinous AfDs in the past year alone:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDealwine
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barza Alba (winery)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times Ten Cellars (fairly lengthy debate)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chateau Marsyas
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards

...and that's just what I recall from 2009. There may even be others I have missed. As Agne pointed out above, your own comments regarding sources and awards on the current AfD clearly indicate a need for an official guideline on wine topics. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• These examples do not demonstrate any need for the guideline. In the first four cases, the articles were deleted for lack of satisfactory sources and so the normal notability guideline seemed adequate and so requires no fortification. The latter case is not yet decided and the discussion indicates that the project's guideline does not command any consensus of editors other than those that created it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready to go live?

• Support-I think the discussion above shows the overwhelming need for this type of guideline. The whole premise of wine marketing and advertizing is to fool the consumer into think tasting medals, wine reviews and casual mentions in travel pieces are signs that a winery is "special". As evident in many AfDs (and the conversation above), it is easy for good faith and intelligent people to fall into the romanticism of wine and give wineries a free pass that they ordinarily wouldn't give to other businesses that fail WP:CORP like your local mom & pop pizza joint. This guideline will provide a clear, straight forward insight into how these issues are viewed in the wine world where there are hundreds of thousands of wines and wineries. This guideline clearly enhances WP:CORP because it takes away some of the romanticism that cause people to not critically evaluate a winery in respect to what WP:CORP says. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but I want to see more involvement from other editors in the Wine Project before we formally propose it. This document has existed for about 6 months. While the rationales for each subtopic are presented with clarity and logic, and the raison d'être for this document becomes evident as you read it, I still think this proposed guideline would benefit from having additional review. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, I think it reads well and seems ready to meet people from non-wine backgrounds for different reactions. MURGH ^disc. 11:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed guideline adds no value to the ordinary notability guideline. It just seems to be an assertion of special expertise in determining significance which is contrary to WP:OWN and WP:MANDARINS and which is unsupported by any evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You of course have a right to oppose, but so far all your assertions have not held water. "Seems" to be an assertion of special expertise? Hardly. It's merely a clarification of existing core guidelines WP:N and WP:CORP in the context of the wine industry. "Adds no value"? If it adds no value, then there wouldn't be such contention over at the Valhalla deletion debate. WP:OWN?? That's a non-sequitur. I defy you to find any instance in this proposed guideline that asserts special expertise or requires any expertise for evaluation of notability. This guideline makes abundantly clear what the criteria are without any need for expertise. Bringing up WP:MANDARINS is similarly ridiculous; there are thousands of Wiki projects consisting of editors with an interest in speical topics. You are now focusing on one project to level baseless accusations of the project's editors as having a vested interest? Incredible. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think the guide explains many of the issues we sometimes come across. I like the language and length and by pointing to this document, many misunderstandings can be avoided in the future.--Nwinther (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - wine and related subjects, almost more than any other topic, attract many mentions in newspapers and so on, that are just trivial and do not support notability. This has to be carefully pointed out and I think this proposed guideline does a good job.--Bduke (Discussion) 03:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I believe that this proposed guide is necessary and will improve the quality of articles in Wikipedia in general. I think this guide is required in order to enhance and/or clarify WP:N,WP:CORP, etc because somehow wineries and vineyards are slipping through the net. Perhaps, as a user says above, it's because of the 'romance' or 'mystique' or cultural baggage attached to the wine business, or for whatever reason, but the fact is that Wikipedia contains many articles related to wine that just shouldn't be there. The proposed guide will help to prevent new articles from being published and also help clean up existing ones. I think that the wine industry is important enough per se and also of interest to so many people (especially people NOT in the wine industry) that this guide is warranted. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Notability , as defined by Wikipedia, is equivalent to coverage in reliable sources. The fact that more wine related topics pass this bar than many other subject areas is not a good reason to replace the only slightly subjective "has been covered enough" with the highly subjective "has enough 'important' accomplishments". Also, if you are going to try and promote this, it need to be a community wide RFC, not just decided by people highly interested in the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, that isn't correct. Notability, as defined by Wikipedia, is equivalent to significant coverage in reliable sources. This document merely explains existing policies and guidelines in the context of wine. That, also, is a different issue than "has enough 'important' accomplishments" — which is not a requirement stated in this document. That can be one claim of notability, among others. Beyond merely asserting, how is the rationale and logic presented subjective? I do agree, however, I agree that this isn't to be decided by people interested in the subject. "Going live" is meant as "bringing to the larger community". ~Amatulić (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You are certainly right - I did leave off the word significant. That was unintentional. Now, let me be more specific about my objections... The main problem I have is that the guideline seems to be saying reviews are worthless for notability. I do realize that a really large number of wines are professionally reviewed, so I see the potential desirability of making such a disclaimer. However, this flies in the face of the "norm" that reviews are one of the best ways to establish notability for most other types of products. If it is not the intention to say reviews are worthless, than maybe the language could be made less harsh.
    • Secondarily, the document is saying wineries covered only locally are non-notable. While, I am generally inclined to agree with that, it is not a position that has global consensus. A "local subjects" notability guideline was specifically rejected by the community and many local subjects do survive AfD.
    • Another, less serious objection is the "inclusion in lists" section which presents a poor argument ("if its a redlink it is probably non-notable") for no apparent reason. Far better would simply be to say inclusion in a list doesn't indicate notability and then add that notability isn't required for list inclusion.
      • Yes, the "inclusion in lists" was poorly written. I have re-written it to address this objection and clarify the meaning of the section. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Now having said all that, I will say the guideline does have many strong points as well. It does offer a good list of accomplishments that confer notability and the "restaurant test" is smart. However, I am afraid the overall thinking here led to the (IMO, erroneous) conclusion that Valhalla Vineyards is non-notable. The decision to delete that article has since been overturned to no consensus. I agree with that conclusion - there is not consensus for these "tighter" guidelines on what "significant" coverage means. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm a winemaker and I've regularly considered writing a mock article about my winery or my friends' to pass by the wikipedia community and see if it could fly... but ultimately, I've always felt like these articles were too dependent on UNnotable sources. I really like this proposal because it spells out what I knew in my gut. That reviews and articles can very commonly talk about a vineyard or winery without explicitly qualifying it as notable. There's a difference between being able to prove a bunch of stuff about a winery (like valhalla) and proving that the winery is notable for some reason. One day I'll be notable, and then you guys will add me on your own!! :D --Mroconnell (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I think it is to long, have to much text that does not define notability, just defining the issue. --Stefan ^talk 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree it's too wordy. It could use a lot of tightening up. Aside from that, defining the issues in the proper context is important to frame the rationale and logic for defining notability. I think the article does a good job of that, but could be better with copy-editing. Any specific examples of sentences or sections that can be cut without weakening the guideline? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I would drop the sections, 'Notability by association', I question 'The restaurant test' since I think it only shows the including critera and it would be more usefull as exclusing, I would read all text and shorten everything to take away the words and sentences that is nice in an article but really add nothing. E.g. 'Tens of thousands of wineries exist throughout the world and in history books^and?. Wikipedia caters to a worldwide audience^{true ...}, yet many of our local favorite wineries will never have their wines extend beyond their region or state^{agree but it does not help me ...}. As an encyclopedia, we strive to catalog the world of wine and the people, places, and events that have made a significant contribution to that world^{very noble but ..}. Stepping beyond the scope of our own personal familarity and biases is difficult but necessary to evaluate the notability of wineries and related businesses objectively^{OK but I still have no clearer idea on what is really notable and what is not}.'. That whole chunk adds nothing but more text to read to fingure out what really is notable!!! --Stefan ^talk 08:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• We should try to a criteria section, wine grapes and regions e.g. would fit well in a criteria definition. --Stefan ^talk 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There are already sections for notability criteria of wine grapes and regions. I don't understand what you're suggesting here. If it's a matter of organizing the outline of the document, what would you suggest, specifically? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you look at some of the other notability policies, see WP:BK and WP:PROF just to pick the first two, they have a clear cirtiera section, the current wine draft does not have that clear criteria and is split all over the place, I think it would be better to have the criteria first in short points and the explanation later in more free text. --Stefan ^talk 08:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I do not like the Notability by association section , not sure what we are trying to say or how it helps, IMHO it only confuses the matter. There is a general rule that notability is not inherited (can not find it now), what more than that do we need to say? --Stefan ^talk 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability by association is there because it happens to be relevant to wine topics. In spite of any general rule you have seen, there are instances in the world of wine where notability is inherited, as described by the associative chain. Not all wine topics (e.g. equipment, viticulture, tourism, etc.) fit in this chain. But some topics do confer notability by association. You ask, how does it help? It helps by clarifying where notability for an article derives from. For example, the most frequent wine-related AfDs concern winery articles. The notability chain suggests a means of establishing notability for that winery; i.e. it is notable if anything to the left is notable (it employs a notable winemaker, or makes a notable wine, or won a notable event), but is not notable by virtue of anything to the right (existing in a notable region). ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not agree, I do not think association give notability, notability comes from the subject, if it does please define more clearly when notbility is associateed in a case where the associated topic is not notable by anything else in any policy. The text now states 'a related subject in the adjacent topic to the right may also be notable', of course it may, anything may be notable, do we mean always or not? 'For example, a notable winemaker implies notability of the winemaker's winery, and possibly also to the region where the winery resides.' So does this mean that if Peter Gago would quite Penfolds tomorrow and starts his own cellar winery that does 500 bottels a year sold to family and friends that it is notable?? Penfolds IS notable, but not because of Peter or John Duval or Max Schubert or by any association, it is notable since there have been enough written about it! If we follow this association, all winemakers of wine in the 1855 classificationj are notable???? Mateus wine maker is notable?? Do we put a time limit? Or is ALL winemakers that have ever made wine for a winery mentioned in the 1855 classification or Mateus notable?? I do not see the value that this association gives to this policy, it is weak in its definition, it goes against other policy and I do not think it adds any value that is not already covered in other policies. I think it should be removed. If it should stay it must be much clearer, shows some examples and show some that does not imply notability so that the reader can understand where the line is for this statement. --Stefan ^talk 08:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, it's gone. I would not have objected if you had removed that section yourself. It was experimental, and the document doesn't suffer without it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• The 'Inclusion in lists' does not define notability, it is just something for arguing in a AFD? and the example is not very good, we have a number of lists of 'Bordeaux' wines, just that they are not named like that. (see Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855, Classification of Saint-Émilion wine, Classification of Graves wine and so on. --Stefan ^talk 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • AfDs have been proposed in the past on non-wine topics on the basis that something appearing in a list doesn't necessarily mean it's sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. This guideline is just trying to cover all the bases, based on what we've seen in past AfD debates. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • That is what I tried to say, I do not think we need to state it again, nothing is notable just because it is mentions anywhere else in wikipedia? Why add the extra text? --Stefan ^talk 08:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• For the sake of pairing this page down to its core, I would endorse Stefan's suggestion of removing the inherited notability and inclusion in list section. At best, we could shrink the inherited notability down to a 1 or 2 line bullet point that reminds people that in general notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. We can also move the text over to WP:WINEGUIDE which has taken on the shape as a supplemental essay to this proposed policy. Let's narrow this down to the core and leave the supplemental essay for expansion of the ideas presented in this policy. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I originally wrote that "notability by association" piece, partly to generate discussion. I think enough discussion has been generated on this page, and I don't mind getting rid of it. It was an idea that came to me one day so I thought I'd write it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• The proposed guideline does a good job of pointing out that wines are, at heart, a product, and that specific wines should generally be mentioned in a main article on the producer. But that's really just a special case of our existing guideline WP:PRODUCT, so I think it would be helpful to make an explicit reference to that guideline, which states that "[i]nformation on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:PRODUCT isn't fully applicable here. A wine can be notable while the producer isn't, in which case it would be inappropriate to comply with WP:PRODUCT and mention the wine in some main article about the producer. Merging related topics together makes sense (such as with De Bortoli Wines where there were once separate articles profiling the founders) but it doesn't always make sense. This guide could serve to clarify such instances, but I don't see it as necessary; it's usually obvious when something needs merging. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Valhalla Principle"?

I know we're trying to pair down the length of this page but I'm curious if anyone else sees any value to finding a way to link User:Agne27/WP:SIGCOV and Valhalla Vineyards as a supplemental essay? A large reason why I took the time to do this is because Valhalla presents a crystal example of some of the fallacies in the "its got sources!" claim for winery notability. On the surface, bean counting 13 potential source citation seems like a good claim for notability but when you look at each sources critically, it becomes clear how weak they really are. As evident by several AfDs, this "Valhalla Principle" (or "Valhalla Fallacy?") happens too often. While I haven't turned this page into an essay yet, it can easily be done. Just interested in other folks thoughts. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It should definitely be used. It's a good analysis of where to draw the line, and outcome pending, exemplifies well how the POV of WP:WINE differs from that of hoi polloi. MURGH ^disc. 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is not part of the same page I support that page fully. It is a VERY good analysis and can be used as reference material in AFDs! Good work! --Stefan ^talk 10:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think one thing that will be needed to for the "Valhalla Principle" is 2-3 examples of wineries that do have significant coverage that a reader can review and then compare to the meager coverage that Valhalla had. This won't be as in depth as debunking Valhalla sources but would be brief notes like ...instead of just receiving casual blurbs in Wine Spectator, this winery was the subject of a full length, in depth article, etc". Possibly something crafted in a table format. Now, of course, our general slate of winery articles suck but can anyone think of 2-3 really good winery articles that have clearly established notability and WP:SIGCOV referencing already in the article? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the essay in the See Also section of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject notability

Rather than trying to push this through as a WP:PROPOSAL, why don't you move it back to the WikiProject's space and tag it with {{Wikiproject notability essay}}? A page like this can be adopted by a WikiProject, and such pages are often just as valuable to editors as pages that have been officially accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)