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. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards[edit]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This has been nominated for deletion before and was kept before we really took things seriously, it seems. First of all, the very term "celebrity" in the title is iffy, as is evidenced by the fact that there's redlinked names in here, with space in the table to argue why someone is a "celebrity". In addition, having a vineyard or a winery is hardly a defining characteristic, and I'm a bit saddened that we create article space for rich persons' hobbies. BTW, that these entries are or can be verified is entirely to be expected since we're talking about rich, famous people here. Verified is not the same as noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing's changed since the last AfD 6 months ago. ɱ (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually fairly interesting read, and decently sourced, etc. Also, I'm a bit saddened that we create article space for rich persons' hobbies and other similar remarks are not valid reasons to delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this ridiculous LISTCRUFT. Trillfendi (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This list is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Celebrity involvement in wine production is a very relevant phenomenon, both in commercial and wine culture terms (see [1], [2] e.g., as well as hundreds more in specialized sites [3]). Whether that qualifies as WP:Notable I don't know. 188.218.87.34 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Notifying all past deletion discussion contributors. ɱ (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is not about whether we think the topic is important, but about whether reliable sources cover the topic. It looks like they do. I'd use the presence of a Wikipedia article to determine celebrity status and cull redlink entries.   Jts1882 | talk  17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the article almost 10 years ago and while I won't deny that some cruft has been added (and would support culling the red links), I'm pleased that a lot of the original text about the historical interest in "celebrity wine" and explaining the different types of involvement is still mostly intact. Those items (and the many reliable sources used just for those two sections) is what makes this a useful article on Wikipedia. People have been interested in "celebrity wines" since the Greeks and Romans and they will be interested in them long after we're all gone. This article helps provide context to the "why" of that phenomenon in an encyclopedic manner. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Agne and the ip above, and others. Gets over 200 views daily. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two redlinked names aren't a crisis, and if it's a problem, that can easily be fixed in the editing process. The title can be moved to something else if there's a consensus that words like "celebrities" or "list" are not encyclopedic. However, rather than vineyards being "hobbies"-- I doubt that any of these people actually stomp on grapes-- they're businesses, and there's a continuing trend for people to make that type of investment. I detect from the tone of the delete comments that this is more of a case of dislike of the subject, rather than a challenge to its notability. Mandsford 17:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments in the last nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Johnbod Agne27. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons I pointed out in the last AfD, I still feel this passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:SNOW in all 3 afds Lubbad85 (☎) 18:32, 1 June 2019 (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.