Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasse Felix


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vasse Felix

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

Article does not establish notability as per WP:N; articles reads like self-promotion as per WP:ADVERT, and article author's edit history shows other self-promiting edits to related articles BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think ... Fails CORP yes, but if this is the first vinery in margeret river I think it is notable, I found a few better refs, not sure if we consider them good enough, but I say Halliday should be good enough? visitvineyards James Halliday which should be resonable references. --Stefan talk 00:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Halliday is as big as it gets when it comes to Australian wine journalists/critics. He should definitely be considered a reliable source. Camw (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stefan. Oz Clark confirms it is "one of the original wineries responsible for rocketing margeret river to fame in the 1970s". To be honest, given the very extensive professional and amateur literature covering wine production, I suspect a valid claim to a sufficiency of non-trivial coverage could be made for very many wineries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the article doesn't establish notability it should be improved rather than be deleted unless the subject is determined to be not notable (and this determination should be done before the nomination for deletion). If it comes off like a promotional article then it should be changed as long as there is enough to work with, rather than be deleted. The above comments show that a fair claim to notability can be established, so keeping the article is reasonable. Camw (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the article has been referenced to establish notability. Though I do disagree with some of the comments above. If the article doesn't establish notability, then....well it doesn't establish notability and encyclopedic worth. Those article provide no benefit to the readers or the project and should be deleted until someone has the desire to write an article that does establish notability and encyclopedic worth-something that contributes rather than detracts from the project. Also, WP:WINEGUIDES aren't good indicators of notability since local Mom & Pop Pizza Shops can achieve the same amount of coverage from local blogs and media. While wine is awesome, it production by itself doesn't convey any special notability above what the production of pizza conveys. AgneCheese/Wine 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The very first point in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." - This page did merit improvement and it should have been done via the regular editing process. It is not spurious to suggest that taking an Article to AfD is not the appropriate way to improve an article and that articles on notable subjects should be deleted until they are of a particular standard is something I (and I believe our policies regarding deletion and notability) disagree very strongly with. Camw (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the internationally most well-known winery of Western Australia. Tomas e (talk) 20:41, 7 June 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.