Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Gin

)

An article on this topic was deleted via AfD about 2½ months ago, and the only apparent change in the situation is that the product has since garnered a few sentences of mention in a BBC News piece (linked in the "External links" section of the article). I doubt that this puts the product, which according to the BBC is available only at 20 local pubs, over the

DRV per the usual procedure. (And let's try to avoid here the festival of sockpuppetry that the previous AfD became.) Deor (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. I'll accept the good-faith assertion that the BBC coverage is enough to warrant recreation instead of sending this to DRV. However, the article is still short of the general notability guidelines, and I'm not sure its single award warrants specific notability as a product. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G4 Speedy delete or just delete for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that national coverage, and 2 international medals is quite good going for a microdistillery (or a regular distillery even...). If you compare them with Sipsmith (the other London microdistillery) it would seem that there is indeed something happening in this corner of the drinks industry. Why haven't new distilleries cropped up on a more regular basis, I wonder? There is also a microdistillery in Wales (Welsh Whisky), Norfolk (English Whisky) and Herefordshire. But that is about it - the rest are in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterS2009 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Great Wisdom from our Leader. "Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to [do] if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate [sic] me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do. That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum. The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times." --User:Jimbo Wales(dated November 7, 2003[1]) PeterS2009 (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The single article from the BBC is not sufficient to establish notability on its own. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.