Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinggis vodka

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 keep. The "delete" !voters characterization of the sources as unreliable is not accurate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinggis vodka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It's sold in Mongolia but doesn't appear to be the subject of any significant and/or independent coverage. Besides, it's a one-line article with no further detail provided. Several Times (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in ~~Weak Delete~~ territory on this one. I know it doesn't matter if independent sources are in English, but the awards alone just don't seem like significant coverage. Is there anything else? Several Times (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good enough for me now. Several Times (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative keep~~Keep It seems to have won a World Spirits Award in 2010 (caveat: I can't view the WSA webpage and so can't verify this), which would convey a modicum of notability. Most references are fleeting, but there are a lot of them. Article is in need of substantial expansion, though; at present it's barely a stub. Yunshui (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To access the private area of this site, please log in." They won't let you see their past award winners without logging in. I don't see any news coverage at all about that award though. Is this a major magazine? Any coverage of their award would be in a language other than English. Being reviewed in a printed magazine dedicated to this field, would make them notable, as would winning an award from that magazine. If they are in it, Keep, it not, I don't know. Dream Focus 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing has been found or asserted that makes the product notable. Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to have won a Double Gold award in the World Spirits Competition 2011, as well. Yunshui (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's won a few other medals as well; I've added the Prod Expo 2009 and Monde Selection 2010 medals, plus source, to the article. I think notability's now met, so I'm amending my !vote, above, to a solid Keep. Yunshui (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(couple more facts and refs added just now) Yunshui (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - the addition of blogs or not reliable externals is detrimental. ref one is a blog -http://blog.timesunion.com/dowdondrinks and is the only link to that blogger on en wikipedia. ref two is a local tourism promo website, used in this single article on the en wikipedia - ref three is a simple comment blog post - unused in any other en wikipedia article - ref four is just a signed in user blog post from an external location used, probably against guidelines only in a couple of other en wikipedia articles.. ref five (the last one) is also another promo almost unused external behindcity.com - all in all a load of unreliable blog posting promo crap. Ask yourself does it belong in this category Category:Brand name alcohol products or by supporting this weak cited promo article are you assisting its inclusion in the category. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Off2riorob; all the refs are unreliable to a certain degree, and I can't see this article get pass Start-class. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to claim that the references aren't a bit sparse, but the argument that a particular source is rarely used elsewhere on WP just doesn't seem to hold water. Sources don't have to be commonly used to be relevant or even reliable, nor are all blog posts automatically unreliable. Rather, the availability of references like these suggests to me that more reliable or impartial sources are likely to exist- they just may not be as easy to access or be in the language I'd prefer. If the subject appears notable and can be described in a neutral and verifiable way, I see no reason to delete it outright. Besides, suggesting that weak support is a reason to refrain from including this article in the category mentioned above doesn't make much sense when the category already includes articles like Wódka Żołądkowa Gorzka with little to no references at all. Several Times (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The retention of Wódka Żołądkowa Gorzka isn't much of an argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but that same guideline also backs up your argument that use of a source elsewhere in Wikipedia is irrelevant. As to the sources:

1 seems okay to me under WP:NEWSBLOG (although it doesn't really provide much information on the topic).
2 is from a department of the Mongolian government, I reckon that's an RS even if it is the tourist board.
3 is a blog, albeit a professional one, but I suspect that the award's official site (can't access this myself) could be used in its place.
4 is, I'll grant you, a blog (it looked like an online magazine to me at first glance), but the information therein should be replicated elsewhere. Should probably be replaced ASAP, though.
5 is data apparently taken directly from the Mongolian goverment, again.

Yes, they aren't exactly the New York Times or Reuters, but with the exception of number 4 I reckon they all just about scrape past WP:RS. As Several Times points out, there are probably more reliable sources available in other languages, but I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention during Mongolian class at school, so I can't find them. Yunshui (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and no reliable evidence either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I saw this discussion I started an article on UFC Group. If there's no consensus to keep this little vodka article, probably the content would fit into the UFC Group#Products section, where it would have more context (UFC Group seems to produce several labels of vodka and other spirits, and I get the sense that English media are lumping several different ones into a single "Chingis vodka"). —Eric Baer (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2011 (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.