Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vok Liqueurs


 * 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 Delete without prejudice. ^demon[omg plz] 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vok Liqueurs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of liquors made by a certain company. Even though it is not a copyvio from their website (was deleted as such but the permission email was sent to OTRS), it is definitely listcruft. Delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As it stands, it's a clear delete, but a rewritten article on the company would be worth keeping, as Vok is a fairly major brand. I'm surprised we don't have one, actually, but I see that the article at Vok is about yet another of those damn Transformers articles. Grutness...wha?  00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Marked for cleanup.  Cbrown1023   talk   00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have just added the rest of the information that was intended to be included with this article when posted. Hopefully this helps it's cause. Jessica.underwood 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there was an article on the company, I'd say merge it. However, there is not an article. If it's not notable to have an article, I doubt its liquers will be. So delete. i said 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is now also an article on the company - see Vok Beverages Jessica.underwood 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up as time allows. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article on the company "Vok Beverages" has now been deleted. I presume somebody thought it was spam. Jessica.underwood 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero WP:RS at all. There is not much to keep. Bearian 00:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Gnangarra 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent sources.  --SmokeyJoe 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like a pretty obvious case of COI at work here, and while the article may not be blatantly spammy it clearly isn't an enyclopedia article in either content or tone. Phrases like "greatest contributions to the list of the world's great drinks" sound like they come right from the back of the bottle.  Support a neautral, fully-sourced article on the company itself, but only if written by those unaffiliated with the company. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice, per Andrew Lenahan. As a brick & mortar business making consumer goods, I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of a doubt.  But this article is pure puffery. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 26 October 2007 (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.