Talk:Deutz Geldermann

Article

I created this page after being frustrated at being unable to find information about Deutz Geldermann on the internet. I carefully researched and linked it. Someone seems to have deleted it on the grounds of its being an article about a company and non-notable. If it were non-notable I would hardly have been searching for material on it. It is an historical company with a current descendant, which to me makes it interesting. There can really be no reasonable grounds for deleting an article of this type.

Speedy deletion

As for speedy deletion, speedy deletions seem to be reasonable for troublesome articles such as malicious articles, or joke articles, but not this. This just denies a chance for editors to put the case for an article's retention. The deleter of this article placed a note on my talk page and by the time I had seen it, the article had been deleted already! Having placed the hangon template on the page, it was deleted again! So two points I am making here - the first paragraph is the justification of the page (if justification be needed), and the second is questioning the need for speedy deletion of articles that are not actually problematic. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy David, as a member of the Wine Project, I agree that Deutz is notable, however I can see how a "non-wine" person would not see that by looking at the article in its current state. Being a winery (or even a champagne producer) by itself is not a de facto establishment of notability just like being a restaurant or a pizza shop is not, in and of itself, notable. There has to be a little more done with the simplest application of WP:CORP being the inclusion of non-trivial, independent reliable sources who speak at length about the producer. (Like Wine Spectator, Decanter, Wine Enthusiast etc) You may want to take a look at similar articles on Champagne producers like Bollinger, Cattier and Champagne Krug to see how these articles clearly establish their notability. You may also find some help in the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged it for deletion since it asserted no notability, as Agne noted above. This needs significant sourcing to avoid further tags (AfD or speedy) for deletion. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for further comments...

I certainly shall have a look at the related articles. However I think that except in the case of self-promotion, the concept of non-notability is the most subjective and weakest of grounds for deletion. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article still lacks any assertion of notability. I don't doubt that the company exists, but existence is not sufficient for notability. If no sources are found, I may bring it to AfD as I don't see any evidence through a search that the company is notable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, given the high profile of Champagne in general (in comparison to many other wines with or without bubbles), to me it would be enough to for a Champagne house to be included on this list indicating that it's a member of the Union of Champagne Houses (which organizes the major producers as opposed to small growers). And Deutz fulfills that criterion, so in my mind they make the hurdle. Tomas e (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs better sourcing because the achievements inferred by inclusion in that list aren't apparent to those not interested in/aware of champagne accomplishments. Thoughts>? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I must confess that as a member of WP:WINE I've usually worried more about how winery articles are written, since they are the category of wine-related articles most likely to be plagued by POV and not conform to our "Wikipedia is not a wine guide" policy. As for notability, being listed in some sort of official classification or - as here - being a member of the organisation of more-or-less major producers is good enough for me. Perhaps I'm being a bit too generous, but we don't get too many winery articles that read as totally irrelevant to me. I also see a certain risk that applying too strict standards (and using English-language sources) almost automatically will mean that most wineries (even major ones) located outside the "anglo world" and which do not focus on distributing in the US, will fail to qualify as notable. Tomas e (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for non-anglo sources, but I'm not sure that my French ability is sufficient given my lack of understanding of the wine industry in English even. I think you raise a valid point about not a wine guide but there's still a lack of context. Right now I'm left feeling "and why do I care about this winery?" Granted you can make the case that I defend the smallest of museums that leave people saying the same, but I think it's an issue. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability: Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 3. Altenburg, a german encyklopedia from 1857, lists deutz & Geldermann as one of the well known champagnerhosues. [1]. Some additional Material about Deutz Geldermann (english): [2]--Temporäres Interesse (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)