Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billionaires Row (Champagne)


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Billionaires Row (Champagne)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to meet WP:CORP; other than a single, very brief article from The Drink Business, all of the available sources are either unreliable (e.g., press releases, blog posts) or merely mention the business in passing. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Billionare's Row apparently lends it name and markets a champagne produced by Charles Mignon. How is that notable? Despite the statement that " The company designs and sells high end fashion, sports wear, and Champagne," I can find no mention of "high end fashion", or "sports wear". Among the recent "notable references" added are a reference to Mignon (a different company}, two non-notable blogs from last summer, two references that the company at sometime applied for a trademark, an ad for a party, and four press releases (to add to the one already there). This leaves a barely passing mention in a Times article. This appears to be merely another instance of the company's marketing activities. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The creator of this article, a self-declared paid editor who normally produces decent content, should have known better before accepting this commission. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.