User talk:Blitzlaw

Proposed deletion of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur


The article Mystic Bourbon Liqueur has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The main ref is a local interview-based piece with no sign of independent fact checking or editorial review.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mystic Bourbon Liqueur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mystic Bourbon Liqueur until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur


The article Mystic Bourbon Liqueur has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable liquor. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The only long sources (http://thetipsytechie.com/2014/03/24/sweet-surrender-mystic/ and http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/11/mystic-bourbon-a-durham-spirit-born.html) are inteview-based ones that aren't independent.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mystic Bourbon Liqueur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mystic Bourbon Liqueur & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mystic Bourbon Liqueur


A tag has been placed on Mystic Bourbon Liqueur, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not re-add this page to Wikipedia. From what I can see, there was nothing new added to the article and the consensus at the 2014 AfD was that it did not pass notability guidelines. If you want to have the article restored your only options at this point are to ask User:J04n if he would restore the page and if he declines, to take it back to WP:DRV. I do need to warn you though, you will need to make a very good argument to either J04n or to DRV that also includes new sources that were not already in the article. Reposting this article without meeting the requirements necessary to have J04n or DRV endorse a recreation can lead to you getting blocked from editing. (The article also had some issues with tone, which is probably a good reason as to why you should not cut/paste the old version into the mainspace, since multiple editors noted that the article's tone was very promotional even at the first DRV.) I also need to ask: what is your personal involvement with the company? Your edits here are almost solely in relation to this brand of alcohol, which gives off the strong impression that you are either a paid employee of the company or someone that was asked to create this page. You can still edit with a conflict of interest and even seek to have the article restored, but you will need to be transparent about your involvement with the company. You can do this by posting your conflict of interest on your user page. The biggest rule of having a conflict of interest is that you not deliberately try to hide or otherwise obfuscate your involvement - if it is deemed that you have a COI that you're not divulging, that's when it can get difficult. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, given that this went through two AfDs, one DRV, and had several people showing concern over its tone, I'd prefer that this go to DRV and ideally, that you would have another editor taking part in helping to edit the article and bring it up to standard if the consensus at DRV is that the article passes notability guidelines. I just can't shake the idea that you're likely a COI editor, which can make it very difficult for you to write in a neutral tone. This doesn't mean that you can't edit or be beneficial, just that it's usually very, very difficult for people to be neutral when writing about something that they have a personal stake in. It's an extremely common issue with COI editors, especially people who work in marketing because they're so used to writing in a promotional tone that they just can't see the parts of the article that come across as promotional to other editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)