Talk:Virgin Wines

Split
Virgin Wines and Virgin Vines are owned by the same parent company, but they should have their own articles as Vines is quite different from the Wines site.Smallman12q (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both articles are stubs and provide very little context to the reader. After looking over the available reliable sources in relation to Virgin Vines, I don't think there is much potential for that article to ever expand beyond a stub and all sources seem to discuss it solely in the context of it being an offshoot of Virgin Wines. It is best to provide the reader the most context available in a single article rather than fragment piecemeal information across several articles. Unless you have some reliable sources to use to create an actual article with sourced paragraphs (instead of a one line, unsourced stub), these should stay merged. AgneCheese/Wine 03:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Attribution
Some of the content in the Virgin Vines section was merged from the stub Virgin Vines article. AgneCheese/Wine 03:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotional Content
This article is written in the style of a promotional sales site for the company.

Much of the material was added via anonymous edits from IP address 46.227.52.84. A whois lookup on this address shows that it's owned by Virgin Wines.

inetnum:       46.227.52.80 - 46.227.52.87 netname:       VIRGIN_WINES descr:         VIRGIN_WINES country:       GB admin-c:        NC2701-RIPE tech-c:        NC2701-RIPE status:        ASSIGNED PA mnt-by:         NC68737-MNT source:        RIPE # Filtered

person:        Neil Camden address:       Varidion address:       9 Axis Centre address:       Cleeve Road address:       Leatherhead address:       KT13 7RD phone:         +551732233333 nic-hdl:       NC2701-RIPE mnt-by:        NC68737-MNT source:        RIPE # Filtered

Non-anonymous content is primarily from the "D Wyatt25" account. Although it's not completely clear who this is, it seems likely to be David Wyatt, who describes himself on LinkedIn as "Social Media & Communications Manager" for Virgin Wines. The Virgin Wines UK site also lists Mr. Wyatt as part of the "Virgin Wines Blog Editorial Team". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic Bird (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparent founder, Rowan Gormley
There's an interesting article on the BBC website today, on the apparent founder of Virgin Wines, Rowan Gormley;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39153993

It's curious that there's no mention of him or the manner of his sacking in 2008 on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.105.120 (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Default monthly payments
Hi Alex, I recently contributed a paragraph to this Virgin Wines page which you subsequently deleted, I don't think your deletion was fair and I would be grateful if we could have a discussion about this to see if we can resolve it.

My paragraph contained three statements of fact: there is a contract on the back of Virgin Wines discount vouchers under which the customer commits to paying Virgin Wines £25 per month; the contract is in very small print 1.5mm high; and the obscure location and small size of the contract details have resulted in some Virgin Wines customers being unaware that they had entered into this contract and that money was being taken from their bank accounts.

Your explanation for your deletion was "Removed unreferenced section. Fails notability. Please see WP:SOAPBOX"

Dealing with your "notability" comment first: may I respectfully point out that the Wikipedia notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles, only to the creation of articles.

Regarding references: I agree that information posted on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, but verification can be done by something other than a reference where the latter is not practical. To verify the information, I supplied a photograph of the back of the Virgin Wines voucher showing the contract terms, and a ruler laid across the text showing that it is 1.5mm high. It is difficult to see what more I could do to verify it. I can send you the original voucher if you wish, so you can examine and measure it for yourself: would that satisfy you as to its authenticity?

I accept that I did not provide verification of the fact that a large number of Virgin Wines customers were unaware that money was being taken from their bank accounts. I apologise for this omission, but here are some references:

https://www.reviews.io/company-reviews/store/virginwines-com

https://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews108279.html

https://www.trustpilot.com/reviews/65c26451bcddf6c09a909a73

As you can see, numerous customers have posted online saying the same thing: that they did not know that they were entering into these contracts or that money would be taken from their bank accounts.

Finally, "Please see WP:SOAPBOX". I have read this page but I can't find anything on it which is relevant to your objection. I am not advocating for anything, expressing any opinion, scandal-mongering, self-promoting or advertising anything, or doing anything which Wikipedia regards as a soapbox. I am simply making three statements of fact.

I would be grateful for your response. If we can't reach agreement on this, I would like to escalate it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN).

Kind regards, Peter Petergray4045 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there ! I don't doubt that the facts are true. But the problem I see, is that a controversy section, by it's nature, needs a reliable source that supports it. So, I think WP:FULLCITE also applies with The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for: ... all material that is likely to be challenged. The SOAPBOX policy also imply that we shouldn't add something to article just because we or some costumers are angry about. If you could add a RS that discuss this issue and supports the text, then it would be fine to add that information to the article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Alexcalamaro's concern. We cannot include something like this without a reliable secondary source. User generated content such as the links provided here are not sufficient. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

COI conflict of editor IP:86.19.147.110
Please note that, as happened some years ago (sea above), it seems that a recent contributor to the article has a COI conflict. The IP address 86.19.147.110, can be checked at Whois , and gives this :

name : VMCBBUK description : GREAT YARMOUTH ...

A google searching of the name VMCBBUK gives Virgin Media Limited as the owner of the server. I'll add a warning to their talk page. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)