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. Discounting the "keep" opinions that do not address the applicable inclusion guidelines.  Sandstein  17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distilus[edit]

Distilus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being one of thousands of unique pages on the web does not make it notable. In fact, there are other sites out there doing similar things (viz http://www.tastings.com/spirits/index.html). I am not seeing coverage beyond a bit of local press/blogs/vanity stuff - not really extensive. Wikipedia is not a listing of every resource out there. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as it is notable, albeit slightly, but it is unique in it's operation which would make it more notable in purpose. Perhaps it could be expanded on? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Bash PROMpT in that expanding the article would definitely add value to wikipedia. In terms of "tastings.com" this looks more like an static directory of "wine" "beers" and "spirits" whereas Distilus leans more towards an interactive community, search engine and digital archive for preservation of distilled beverages solely. I have also expanded on the article mentioning the sites integration with wine-searcher. Hoice (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but it seems then that it is simply piggybacking on another search engine, which makes the claims to uniqueness even less tenable in regards to searches at least. And you just have to look at Wine-searcher's article to see why it is notable - a list of over half a dozen major publications (including Forbes and the LA Times) which have given the site coverage. That is what is meant by "Significant coverage" in WP:NOTABLE, something which this site does not have. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure the appropriate word to use would be piggybacking considering the API code has been deeply integrated with the site and acts as its "engine". The uniqueness is how Distilus has creatively integrated the WS engine with its own database and media. In teams of sources, you are correct in saying that they are less notable however does this constitute a less meaningful source? The sources are there, from a credible Canadian business magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoice (talk • contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it is as unique as you claim, Uniqueness and Notability are not the same thing. The sources provided leave me unimpressed to say the least. Only one source (http://www.arbitragemagazine.com/general/profiling-rising-start-up-distilus/) has any depth to its coverage, and all independent sources (excluding the link to the company site, and the questionably relevant citations linking to wine-searcher) profile it under their "start-up" sections, which doesn't inspire much confidence in my opinion. If it's really notable, wait a few years, and better sources will come naturally. For now, I say toss it. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 20:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It surely could use an expansion, however as the above post has stated, the sheer uniqueness of the operation does merit its notoriety. Wennis 33 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true it hasn't been shown to be unique. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like its the process on which Distilus runs is what is notable. Being an archive for the worlds rarest spirits and preserving their history is important and the global community should be able to know that such a collection is in one accessible place. I strongly vote to keep it.123.211.224.52 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of notability is something of debate yes. Here is the position as of now at the table, does the site offer something of historical, intellectual and overall goodness to wikipedia? I am leaning towards yes. Is it so much so that it overrides its notability? Perhaps no, but it does have notable sources, as i also enjoy a nice glass of scotch even more so to discover one. Rmrende (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fascinating how people are discovering Wikipedia and weighing in here as a first and sometimes only contribution. :-) I am not saying it's a case of WP:CANVASS but this site does seen to have some ardent supporters! Harry the Dog WOOF 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its because it was promoted on the fb fan page to participate in the discussion Hoice (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC) :)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid that falls under WP:CANVASS and is not allowed. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that it was intentional. I believe all the supporters of Distilus also support the importance of fair dealings with Wikipedia. But yes they are enthusiastic thats for sure. Any potential canvassing must of been a misunderstanding and I hope it does not detract from any credibility.131.245.208.230 (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but "Its because it was promoted on the fb fan page to participate in the discussion" tells me it was intentional. Especially as we have also had some sockpuppeting. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont think posting something that says "Join the discussion on the Distilus wiki article" is considered illegal, especially when its stimulating the debate. Hoice (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:CANVASS. Encouraging people to join a debate like this one knowing that they will take your side in the discussion is certainly against the letter and the spirit of the policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are getting too technical. What was meant was that, I do not think going against the spirit of Wikipedia was intentional not the actual invitation to engage in discussion. Further more I am starting to get the impression that you almost have a vendetta against this page for some reason and now have a biased negative opinion of whether this site is truly notable or not. No other user is as adamant about deleting the page but you. Maybe it's time you withdraw yourself from the discussion as you might be exhibiting characteristics of WP: Tendentious Editing. I only say this for the spirit of Wikipedia and nothing personal.131.245.208.230 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's funny coming from someone whose only edits are in defence of this article. If I am adamant in this case, it's because I don't like to see people with conflict of interest abusing Wikipedia by creating vanity pages, and then resorting to sockpuppetry and canvassing in order to save it. Those are facts, and no amount of arguing can change them, and if it continues I will report those involved. I think that is a clear and valid reason for wanting the page deleted, quite apart from the subject's lack of notability. It has nothing to do with tendentious editing which is about making biased, POV changes to articles. Right now, as I see it, of the non-canvassed opinions expressed, apart from the article's creator, we have a weak keep and two deletes. Harry the Dog WOOF 04:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tendentious Editing includes: Accusing others of malice eg. Sockpuppetry. When and where has there been more then one user name used by the same user? There has not been any malice going on here. The only mistake was suggesting to users to engage in discussion which may be classified as canvassing but it was done with out intent to disrupt any spirit of good faith. I am willing to make this my last comment and I hope you do the same. Give the page a chance to grow and for users to add more notable sources for Distilus. You made your points, leave it to the rest to make a decision.131.245.208.230 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not an accusation of malice when there are facts to back the accusation up. In fact, I have bent over backwards to assume good faith in this entire debate, even in the face of flagrant evidence to the contrary. I have already discussed this with Hoice. Look on his talk page. When the article was up for speedy deletion, he made two separate comments on the talk page, one logged in, one as an IP. These two edits were meant to look like they came from different people. He was only caught because a further comment was made here using the same IP (64.231.242.112), but a subseqent edit to the same comment a minute or so later was signed by Hoice. I only make accusations of sockpuppetry when there is evidence. To his credit Hoice has not denied the facts, which is why I decided not to report him. Members of the Wikipedia community who abide by the rules will determine the fate of this article. As I said, that does not include people with conflict of interest who resort to sockpuppetry and canvassing. Again, these are facts, and no amount of arguing or rationalising will change them. If the page is deleted, and notability can subsequently be established, it will be recreated, hopefully by someone without a COI. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (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.
More