Talk:Onaka (grape)

Merger

I oppose this merger of a valid grape article into the list article. Besides setting a dangerous precedent and this is obviously a bad idea. The grape variety list is suppose to be just that-a list and shouldn't included merged content talking about the history and description of the grape. Furthermore, it should be well established that all botanical species are inherently notable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - I nominated the article; if there is a principle that all varieties are notable (we are not talking about different species, but different cultivars) then I would change my opinion. Does the notability rule extend to varieties?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know if it has ever been written down, but it has been accepted practice for years that all varieties are notable, such as all varieties of apple cultivars. Wine grapes in particular are notable because not only are they individual grape varieties but they are also potentially individual varietal wines. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this particular cultivar, is that there is nothing much apparently written about it anywhere. Given that cultivars are often commercial products, how do you avoid spamming on the topic?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well up until today, WP:WINE didn't even know about this article. The project members have access to quiet a bit of wine related sources including some subscription online resources. Considering this grape's connection to the well known Kay Gray varietal, there is obviously information available in viticultural circles. As for spamming, grape articles are low risk targets. Spammers (at least in the wine industry) are far more prevalent with winery and wine region article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, I would consider grape varieties and clones (e.g. virus-free clones of old grape varieties) to be semi-commercial. Breeding, which is a very slow process, is typically carried out at government-supported institutes, but some sort of licensing fee (which hardly recovers the whole cost) is typically charged for the end product. Tomas e (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this decision to merge Onaka (grape) into a list. The AFD swiftly took place without much participation, and ought to be reopened. MURGH ^disc. 05:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as there is no way that the relevant information on a grape variety (pedigree, properties, history...) can be compressed into a list. And I can't see how that information wouldn't be relevant in an encyclopedia. I added a link to Vitis International Variety Catalogue for this variety. In principle, I consider all registered, released and named varieties as notable. On the other hand, experimental varieties that never got anything more than a serial number, such as a portion of the Seibel grapes should typically be kept in lists or summary articles. Tomas e (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this decision to merge the Onaka article into a summary list. I agree that to do so would necessarily involve losing relevant information. The connection with Kay Gray, a well-known grape which has played a very significant role in the breeding of varieties for extremely cold environments, is adequate in my mind to support a page for Onaka. I think considering all varieties notable by default is probably safer than not doing so. I would also disagree with the idea that there is nothing much written about it anywhere. There may be very little available on the web, but there are numerous references in books more published during the era of its release. Also, it's a little silly to suggest that this is promotional for Nels Hansen, who is long dead, and never patented the variety. The only lasting value of Onaka is historical, at this stage.Elakazal (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)