Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Winery

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=City Winery}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=City Winery}})

This is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. I found these sources: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Downhome_Sound/jUaWEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=city+winery&pg=PT103&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Creating_the_Hudson_River_Park/BGv5EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=city+winery&pg=PT205&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Weekends_in_Chicago/wc2tAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=city+winery&pg=PT152&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Nashville_Chef_s_Table/pe-YDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=city+winery&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lou_Reed/v1cRDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=city+winery&pg=PT410&printsec=frontcover]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:
• ::The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.
• ::The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.
• ::Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.
• ::Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.
• ::Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:
• ::::But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.
• ::::Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.
• ::::To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.
• ::::By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.
• ::::Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.
• ::::Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.
• ::::Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.
• ::::I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.
• ::::The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.
• ::::Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.
• ::::I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: There seems to be enough sourcing to justify a small article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

:To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• ::Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:
• ::- Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.
• ::- Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Note: none of those 5 sources were news sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agreed, @DotesConks.
• :::My concern, based on this new data, and even with you excellently cleaning up the article to eliminate content that was PR copy taken directly from their website, is that the article will remain unable to be fleshed out into one that meet's Wikipedia standards. The current content of the article is a textbook example of exactly the type of article that should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR (not a directory) and WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient significant coverage beyond routine business reporting and PR). Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTDIR makes it clear that simple listings of businesses do not warrant standalone articles. The content of this article amounts to little more than, "There is a business called City Winery with locations in various cities," which is precisely the kind of business cataloging Wikipedia is not meant to host. If it had meaningful cultural or historical significance (which is difficult to achieve, considering that the business is quite new and thus would be difficult to be of "historical significance"), someone would have written about that instead of just listing its offered services, where it is, and who played there.
• :::The available citations fail to provide substantive coverage of the subject, making it impossible to write a meaningful, encyclopedic article. Instead, as stated above, what exists is a short business listing and advertising PR, because that is all that can be written with the citations available.
• :::Additionally, WP:GNG requires significant, independent, and sustained coverage in reliable sources. However, the sources provided do not offer substantial analysis of City Winery as a unique cultural or business entity in its own right. They are either brief mentions in the context of business listings, passing references in articles about other topics, or promotional content that does not contribute to notability. Without robust secondary sources that provide a deeper examination of the company’s history, influence, or unique contributions, there is no way to expand this article into something encyclopedic.
• :::Furthermore, the fact that notable musicians have performed at City Winery locations does not make the venue itself notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is merely a standard business operations statement. It is a concert venue. People perform concerts there. Nothing noteworthy about that basic business function. This is the same flawed reasoning that has led to improper justifications for similar business-oriented articles in the past. A venue's significance must be demonstrated through independent third-party coverage that focuses on the venue itself, not simply by listing artists who have played there.
• :::To clarify:
• :::This is just a "this place exists" article. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion.
• :::Wikipedia is not a business directory or a "document everything" database. It is an encyclopedia, and articles need to demonstrate why a subject matters in a broader historical, cultural, or societal context. Right now, the City Winery article lacks that context entirely.
• :::The article contains: No cultural impact analysis; No historical significance; No indication that it changed or influenced anything; No evidence that it pioneered or defined a movement or trend.
• :::Instead, the article reads like a glorified brochure or Yelp listing:
• :::Here’s a business. Here are some locations. Here are some concerts that happened.
• :::The current citations do not support the capacity for development of a substantial entry. If and when such coverage emerges, an article could be recreated with actual depth. At this stage, however, City Winery does not appear capable of even potentially meeting the threshold for inclusion, and deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::please stop bludgeoning the discussion @Qinifer or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{u|Quinifer}}, this page is ~29,000 bytes; of that, you have contributed nearly 20,000. That is not a demonstration of academic rigour. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:CA8:12E3:13D0:8A44 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete. This one is a close one given the sources, but while there does seem to be some independent secondary sources, the widespread independent coverage in those sources is lacking based on a cursory search. If further evidence towards widespread coverage, it would be more convincing. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written is essentially a WP:PROMOTION.  GuardianH  04:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{comment}} I don't feel comfortable !voting because I'm friends of friends with the owner (Manhattan being the smallest village in the world). I feel obligated to tell you that the son of the owner, Nick, who has used Sockpuppets, has heavily edited the article. The closing administrator must decide whether the sources, which do exist, are significant enough. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Delete – Two references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete since it really does read like a promotion and is not encyclopedic. Seems there is COI issues too on the owner’s page Michael Dorf. There are many venues for music in any city. We do not need to make article for these unless they really are significant. Ramos1990 (talk)

{{clear}}

: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.