Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reif Estate Winery


 * 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. Content problems are not a reason for deletion, and neither is the creator's standing unless they were evading a block/ban at the time of article creation. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Reif Estate Winery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Proposing deletion with possibility of a new article if topic is determined to meet WP:WINERY notability criteria. Current article fails WP:NPOV and consists entirely of promotional and primary-sourced content. Is a paraphrase of the subject's own marketing copy and was originally. Ibadibam (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a request for clean up. There are plenty of RS out there. AfD is not the place for clean up.
 * NYTimes
 * Wine Spectator (I can not access the article)
 * O Canada
 * Valoem  talk   contrib  15:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT and Canada.com articles have passing mention, so those don't establish a presumption of notability. Wine Spectator is a good source if the linked article is a profile and not just a portal of individual wine reviews, per WP:WINERY. Maybe we can find someone who has credentials to view the link and evaluate it. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep I agree with the Strong Keep above. If it needs a clean up, there's no need for it to be tagged for deletion, unless it has already been tagged as such and that hasn't been mentioned. Tag it as needing a clean up and notify the article creators. That's the correct procedure. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been tagged for the primary-source problem for nearly three years. The page creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. What else needs to have been done to satisfy the need for due diligence? Ibadibam (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2014 (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.