Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenchman Hills Winery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frenchman Hills Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:WINETOPICS. Little or no sources about this winery. Local competitions do not establish notability. Article author's edit history suggests promotional motivation. Initial prod was removed with the odd reason "this site is meant to be informative and educational about wines in washington"; no, it is promotional about one winery. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator. No signs of notability (first vintage as recently as 2005), created with marketingspeak rather than encyclopedic content. Tomas e (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, as of yet no WP:RS on which to base an article. MURGH disc. 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There are simply not enough WP:RS to craft a develop article on. AgneCheese/Wine 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We also appear to have some potential WP:SOCK activity related to the article with the single-purpose account of User:Thithi0891 who created the account and the anon IPs User:128.95.196.210, User:69.91.134.243 and User:76.121.3.20. AgneCheese/Wine 18:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to assume too much good faith, but this is not WP:SOCK or even potential SOCK. Sock is to use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt, the IPs and user above as far as I can see have not been used to mislead or deceive, I WP:AGF and think it is a new user that forgets to login. Please, please, please do not try to block or post nasty messages on his user pages, talk to him and explain the policies and if he misbehaves AFTER being told then we can start considering SOCK. He is talking and states that he has the intent to learn and claims to not be a single purpose account, lets give him/her a chance to prove that. --Stefan talk 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I wouldn't characterize this as sockpuppetry, just editing without logging in. I had to initiate a checkuser once where a user account and its associated IP address pretended to be multiple people (and sockpuppetry was established by checkuser), but that isn't the case here. In this instance, my assumption of good faith was significantly weakened when I noticed the editor trying to promote this winery in other articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to assume too much good faith, but this is not WP:SOCK or even potential SOCK. Sock is to use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt, the IPs and user above as far as I can see have not been used to mislead or deceive, I WP:AGF and think it is a new user that forgets to login. Please, please, please do not try to block or post nasty messages on his user pages, talk to him and explain the policies and if he misbehaves AFTER being told then we can start considering SOCK. He is talking and states that he has the intent to learn and claims to not be a single purpose account, lets give him/her a chance to prove that. --Stefan talk 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I took the time to provide a detailed explanation to the article creator about the problems i saw with the article on the talk page before it was nominated and prodded, and it was apparently ignored. I spent time trying to find significant (or even multiple instances of lesser) coverage of this article and was unable to do so. Thus the majority of the article cannot be verified. (The only information of note I could verify was about a negative lawsuit that I won't link to, and is not mentioned in the article.) The fact the that article was likely created by someone involved with the winery does not greatly trouble me if they are able to try to comply with wikipedia's collaboratively-reached policies. But I can only assume they realize by now they can't. Unless sources can be found, its time is short.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (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.