Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'CHAIM Vodka


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) → B  music  ian  01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

L'CHAIM Vodka

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2012 May 9. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep with extreme pruning - An obviously spammy article, and the sources are quite possibly the product of pay-to-play "journalism" but there's no getting around the fact that this satisfies notability with that kind of coverage. If anything negative about the product or company can be found in valid sources to balance the article out that would be good.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG:
 * Bloomberg (Associated Press article): Toast Hanukkah with kosher spirits
 * NY Daily News: Kosher vodka for Hanukkah toasts - L'Chaim makes kosher rum, wine and tequila
 * Jewish Way Magazine: A Toast to Diversity: L'Chaim Kosher Vodka breaks through cultural barriers and wins over sophisticated vodka drinkers throughout Florida
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hit someone with a banhammer. The article was an utter disaster, with OR by SYNTH throughout, and a substantial hit of misrepresentation of sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * was or is?  DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Was. I have no opinion on deletion, but I hope the admin who looks at this article realizes that WP:OR and WP:NPOV are policies that people can be blocked for violating, just like WP:CIVIL. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If people ever actually got blocked for CIVIL violations. Silver  seren C 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources say more than enough. If there's any issues with advertising or OR, that can be dealt with by normal editing, which has already been done since the creation of this AfD. Silver  seren C 17:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability has been shown. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no deletion argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait...does that even work with articles sent to AfD from a DRV closure (and the closing admin then taking it to AfD per that decision, which is why he is abstaining)? Silver  seren C 22:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If AfD nominations are good for the encyclopedia, how come no one has ever set up a robot to methodically nominate every article in the encyclopedia for deletion? The procedural nomination was added by one editor about a year ago without any discussion.  It continues to lack any evidence of discussion to support it.  IMO, the provision is a failed experiment.  There is no benefit to a procedural nomination, because there are only two possibilities for a DRV closed WP:NPASR.  (1) Someone is willing to do the work to prepare an AfD nomination.  (2) No one is willing to do the work to prepare an AfD nomination.  In neither case is a procedural nomination an improvement.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. Maybe we should start a discussion to get procedural nominations removed from the AfD/DRV rules? Silver  seren C 03:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case (i.e. DRVs on speedies), I think you may have a point. However, in general, for reviews of AfDs, there is a distinction between "overturn to keep/no consensus" and "overturn and relist." The latter option either expresses less certainty about overturning the close or suggests that the initial AfD itself might have been flawed. In that case, I don't really see the need for a nominator to rehash the same arguments, when the DRV closer can just start a discussion and link to the old AfD if people want to read it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, that is not necessarily the case that for a 2nd AfD there was a legitimate nomination at the first AfD. Second point, if administrators can carry the nomination from the first AfD into the second AfD, shouldn't they also bring forward all of the discussion from the first AfD?  How is closing "Overturn to no consensus WP:NPASR" not a better path?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking my facts, here is the diff that enabled the procedural nomination, in April 2011. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (2nd nomination) is a relevant example of problems with procedural nominations. First of all, the nomination of the first AfD was by a banned editor.  The procedural nomination is by an admin that in two other instances has protected the AfD nominations of banned editors.  Next note that the closing argument cited previous deletion arguments.  Editors cannot respond with the force of reason when closers bring in new evidence.  This is not a unique example of citing previous AfD arguments in the closing of a procedural nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have the right & the obligation to discuss an article, if there is reasonable question about its suitability. Since I first came here 5 years ago, I have been nominating for AfD occasional articles I am not sure about--=the best way to see what should be done is not to try to exercise my own judgment, but get a community opinion. We discuss about 8% of the total submissions that pass speedy at AfD--we could probably get it down to 5% by more use of prod, and not nominating articles which are certain to pass. But if there is a good faith need to discuss, this is a good process--despite its susceptibility to lobbying, it's probably the best process we have of any. And when  there is a AfD that gets contaminated or confused, the best way of clarifying it is a new AfD.  I point out that  if there is prejudice against an article or an article topic, a clear keep at AfD does the encyclopedia positive good besides avoiding the deletion. .  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So Motherhood, apple pie, sliced bread, and AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—article passes WP:N because there are enough third party sources that cover it in a non-trivial manner. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:41, 17 May 2012 (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.