Talk:Folie à Deux (winery)

This article is commercial linkspam. It should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
 * The comment above was deleted by Lucy45. I have restored it. This editor should understand that it is considered unacceptable to delete material from talk pages. The article itself is clear linkspam and should be nominated for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I don't see how this is linkspam. --  Whpq (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise if I have used the term linkspam incorrectly. The article reads as an advertisement for a commercial activity. It has little content of notability if any. See Spam-1. Advertisements masquerading as articles. It could be useful to run it through the AfD process and let it stand or fall on its merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I don't see how this article is promotional in tone or is otherwise an advertisement masquerading as an article. If you feel that the winery does not meet, notability, then that is another matter. -- Whpq (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not linkspam
Please do not remove the Folie a Deux Winery link from the Folie a Deux page. Thank you very much. I would also like to add that I am a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia and I am trying very hard to adhere to all the standards. I appreciate your Folie a Deux page, and I feel the winery is a valid link due to my participation in WikiProject Wine.Lucy456 (talk)

Folie a deux winery
I've reverted your removal of the external link in Folie a deux winery. An external link to the website of the article subject is compliant with WP:EL, and spcifically, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." If you fee that the article itself is spam, then you could propose it for deletion, but I don'y see how it is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The two comments above were placed on my talk page. I have put them in their proper place, which is the talk page of the article concerned. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Notability
I added a prod tag as in my opinion the subject of this article is not notable, as per WP:N. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this winery is notable and can pass WP:CORP but certainly not in this article's current state. There are reliable sources that can be used to fix this article up but I don't personally have the time to work on this. That said, I have no problem with deletion since there is really not a loss to the reader with the absence of a sub-par article and so won't contest the prod. However if someone absolutely wants to avoid deletion, I am just noting that this article can easily be saved. AgneCheese/Wine 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I redirected per the AfD. The given "source" of the supposed wine of the year award was a PR Newswire release.  Hey, can I appoint myself "editor of the year" and become an article subject?  (Never mind, I don't want to be one.) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. The consensus at the AFD was to keep or merge, not to redirect without keeping the content anywhere. If you are going to redirect, please WP:PRESERVE the page content. I.e. incorporate it at Trinchero Family Estates after unredirecting it from Sutter Home Winery. Jfire (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would strongly object to deleting or merging this page (and no, I have no connection with the winery). A wine which is the best-selling red in the country, and a winery which was named "wine brand of the year" by an independent source, certainly deserves its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have upgraded some of the references, since some of you objected to the sources.--MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)