- 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 no consensus. North America 1000 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The Botanist
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Botanist ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I admit I'm no drinker, but this advert created by User:Thebotanistgin seems not to make a very solid argument for notability. The sourcing is pretty feeble. Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The reviews in the Chicago Tribune and Vancouver Magazine are clearly from reliable sources, and this local one is as well. The book Spirit of Adventure (not available online) is a reliable source for the still but not for the gin. Some of the other reviews maybe self-published, but I think the coverage by unambiguously reliable sources is enough to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - the sourcing is far from feeble: Chicago Tribune and Vancouver Magazine are reliable enough to be referenced thousands of times on Wikipedia, and both cover the subject in detail; Several other sources are also present. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete sources are promotional, and the Chicago Tribune article is a promotional interview+recipe piece. wumbolo ^^^ 23:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Wumbolo. Chicago Times article is promotional. » Shadowowl | talk 18:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The discerning drinker wants to know. The Chicago Times article may be promotional, but it is also informational. Additional external links have been provided, and more can be found via Google search. -- Vicedomino ( talk) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article on Gin lists 35 other brands in addition to 'The Botanist', all of which have separate articles, and many of which are similar in style and content to the article on 'The Botanist'. See, for example Konig's Westphalian Gin. It seems as though usage has long since trumped the aggressive desire to delete. It seems to me that the effort ought to be in the direction of improving the article, rather than deleting what is already there. -- Vicedomino ( talk) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.