Jump to content

Talk:Jessie Creek Winery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.

Currently, this article has 7 "sources":

#1 includes it in a list.
#2 - A local newspaper announces it has just opened.
#3 is a blog.
#4 does not mention, let alone discuss, the topic. Additionally, it a is primary source.
#5 includes it in a list.
#6 includes it in a list.
#7 includes it in a list.

A prod was removed with the explanation "disagree". Um... thanks for the explanation. = SummerPhD (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I "disagree." The inclusionist in me believes in holding off before whacking stub articles to see how they develop. I've worked with User:DavidinNJ on alcohol-related articles (one, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, became an FA this week), and I can tell you that they don't develop overnight--they aren't immediately perfect--but the work is high quality and constantly being improved by new discoveries. That doesn't happen in the few hours after expanding the article from a redirect to New Jersey wine to its current format. And it will take a little longer to establish more information. In fact, most stubs never have one source much less the 7 you note above, or the others added to it subsequently. Both he and I edit and contribute the same way--by increments. As for notability--while you might be quick to judge it on an article-by-article basis--you would benefit to know there is a larger motive for writing these NJ winery articles. For several months we've worked on a list that we'd like to nominate as a featured list in the near future--that can't happen until we develop decent articles on the list subjects. The articles DavidinNJ and I have done on wineries are neutral, backed by reliable sources, verifiable, and not peacock-term-laden advertisements. We continue to discover new sources and add new information into the article. We created a format that doesn't run afoul of those policies. Your action, while you might think you're right, is to much akin to clubbing a baby seal. Let things grow, you might be surprised--don't be in a rush. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the requirement for notability is "coverage by independent, reliable sources" - two books, newspaper coverage meets that currently, and it is safe to assume that coverage will in the short-term and long-term grow from there. The state law (regarding license-permitted activities) and the sources you describe as "lists" serve to confirm facts. IMO, notability and reliable sources is met.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Clubbing baby seals?" Ouch. To me, it's more like stepping on cockroaches. There are certainly lots of articles on Wikipedia that need a one way trip through AfD: garage bands that played at a rummage sale, someone's favorite gym teacher and such. Not every winery in New Jersey is notable. The desire to get a list of them up to GA status does not change this. Two books including the winery in a list and an article in a local newspaper are indeed "coverage by independent, reliable sources". Unfortunately, our notability criteria call for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I'll let this ride for a few days, come back and yank the blog, remove material not from reliable sources, trim the pointless "See also" section, yank the primary source and see what's left. Then it might be time for AfD if notability isn't established. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I guess in your humble estimation and using your interpretation of criteria, Jessie Creek is about as notable as, say, a few of your proud contributions at Greater Kensington (string band), or as developed as your work at Marian Burros, or as significantly covered as J. Leon Altemose whose only achievement was getting beaten up by union thugs and dying at 68. I guess the dialogue goes..."hey pot...this is kettle...guess what? what? you're black." I rarely get "tag-happy" because I believe in inclusion and I recognize that there's something for everyone here...but exceptions can be made. -.- --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble interpretation, notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. My interpretation is based on WP:NOTABILITY saying "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I am not a mind reader, so I don't know what your interpretation of "significant coverage" is.
If you have problems with other articles, feel free to discuss them on their respective talk pages.
Yes, "exceptions can be made". However, that is not an argument that an exception should be made. If you have a reason why this particular topic should not have to demonstrate notability, please explain. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, This article has far more coverage than many articles on Wikipedia. More importantly, we're not done writing the article. Right now, it has 7 references, 2 of which are exclusively about the winery. I have several other sources from major newspapers (AC Press, Phily Inquirer) which I plan to add this weekend. DavidinNJ (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have problems with other articles, feel free to address the issues on those articles' talk pages.
As for the sources you plan to add, we can certainly reassess notability when they are in place. At the moment, notability is not established. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic section

[edit]

"The winery has a plenary winery license from the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which allows it to produce an unrestricted amount of wine, operate up to 15 off-premises sales rooms, and ship up to 12 cases per year to consumers in-state or out-of-state.[3][4]"

The first source is a Wikipedia image file showing "a document obtained from the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), obtained per the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), listing companies holding alcohol manufacturing licenses." This is a primary source. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources" [[Wikipedia:Nor#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources]

The second source, also a primary source, is New Jersey Statutes - 33:1-10.

The second source does not mention or discuss the Jessie Creek Winery, counter to WP:OR. "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Taken together, (A) Jessie Creek has a plenary license; (B) plenary wineries can do X; therefore (C): Jessie Creek can do X. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." WP:SYN

This section uses two primary sources that we should not be using. One of those sources does not cover the subject of the article. Neither source says what we have them saying. Further, the second source lays out numerous limitations as to when the "unrestricted" amount of wine may be produced, while we are ignoring these limitations. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD, As promised, I added additional references to this article. Jessie Creek is discussed in a national newspaper (Philadephia Inquirer), a regional newspaper (Press of Atlantic City), a regional magazine (Jersey Eats), a regional wine history book (New Jersey Wine: A Remarkable History), and several local publications. The The business notability standard states that "evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability," and this article clearly meets that standard.
There is no prohibition on the use of primary sources: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Simply listing the type of license that a winery has based on an official government document is acceptable since the state of New Jersey is a reliable source. As for the N.J.S.A. statute citation, just about every legal article in Wikipedia cites statutes and court decisions directly - e.g., see United States v. Lara, a recent feature article. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPLY Your complaints are non-issues. The first source is a primary source that establishes a fact--Jessie Creek has a plenary winery license...one that directly references JCW. The second source is added to a corollary statement that explains what the license is by mentioning the core permitted activities under the license. That's not OR, and per your quote above, citing an ABC document pointing to their license and briefly explaining what that license permits is directly relates to the topic and directly supports the material reliably. So your claim is baseless. To claim that it "implies" a conclusion is baseless--no, it states its conclusion rather directly. Per WP:SUMMARY, we don't need to get into a lengthy discussion as to what that license is or is not because this isn't an article about the minutiae regarding licenses. This is one sentence with two uncontroversial statements of fact--despite your nonsensical questions thinking in that self-important way that your protest means something. Such details regarding legal minutiate, fees, etc. are not germane here and is better addressed and is addressed elsewhere. Unrestricted means no limit on capacity (irrespective of fees), and is a comparision to a farm license which limits capacity. The restrictions are on shipping which are not relevant to mention here because they aren't relevant to JCW. Your argument that such a direct basic statement of fact runs afoul of WP:SYN is incorrect...several of the WP:SYNNOT points refute your meritless assertion. Per WP:PSTS "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Again, your claims are baseless.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jessie Creek Winery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessie_Creek_Winery&oldid=1246946177"