Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Camp Vineyards


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn, article kept per consensus and statement from nominator. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

French Camp Vineyards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability evident. Notability tag placed months ago, no change. Tag was removed. Article prodded. Prod removed. This article contains information that isn't substantially different from the back-stories of hundreds of other non-notable vineyards or wineries. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are sufficient to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the articles I added, two solely about this vineyard's innovative farming practices, the other partially about it, are sufficient. - Merzbow (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This one seems to be notable. The refs. are more than press releases, & it was featured on the cover of a relevant trade magazine. DGG (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since when do external links in an article make the subject notable? The content of this article says nothing to assert notability. What content in those external links makes it notable? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The exact wording of WP:CORP is this: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There's no requirement that the article text need assert something "special" about the subject, although the article should of course be comprehensive and NPOV. - Merzbow (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - wineries are like resorts and hotels, they are just as notable, have long standing histories, thousands or millions of visitors, encompass very large tracts of land, make millions of dollars, and sell their own brands of products, much more important than say a high school, we have room for themMY♥IN chile 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You used the exact same argument on another AfD. The article subject does not share the qualities you mention. The fact that other garbage exists on Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep this article. Each article should stand on its own merits. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources independent of the subject exist and are substantial enough to establish notability. Additional non-independent sources are adequate for expanding article with non-controversial details. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator - while I disagree that this organization has anything notable enough to distinguish itself from thousands of others like it, and therefore doesn't warrant an article, I am now convinced that the article could be expanded to be acceptable. Therefore, I wish to withdraw this nomination (but I don't know how). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:10, 2 August 2008 (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.