Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolnaya 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The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ray Talk 07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stolnaya vodka

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

I originally speedied as G11. Speedy was declined. I suggest that this counts as blatant advertising that would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic. Additionally, there are severe notability issues as well -- Gnews gets 1 hit, but that might be a linguistic issue. Ray Talk 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment I won't suggest a keep or delete yet, I have alerted WikiProject Spirits to ask if there is anyone willing to have a go at rewriting the article, as I feel it may have potential, in my opinion it can be saved. If people start rewriting the article, please can I suggest a good faith keep, with a view to renominate in the future if it still isn't up to standard? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now suggested keep, it now seems to be a valid stub that just needs expansion. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  23:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll go to school now, and look at it again tonight, and if things look better then, I'll be happy to withdraw. Ray  Talk 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete - as it stands know it is copyright violation as it is an exact copy and paste from the North American distributors web page found here. However, if it is an award winning vodka there should be plenty of sources out there and could be saved. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've removed the copywritten material and added a couple references. The article is barely a stub but since it is no longer blantent advertising it'll do for now until it can be rewritten properly -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Seems notable. I found a source to assert it. I don't have time to add it right now, though.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A consumer product for which independent reviews may be found, the brand also seems to have gotten some notice in reliable sources on account of its potentially confusing trademark. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nom. It looks better now. Sorry it took so long -- I clean forgot about this, for which I am sorry. Ray  Talk 07:34, 28 March 2009 (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.