Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willamette Valley Vineyards


 * 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. SNOW, but see my comment at the bottom of the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Willamette Valley Vineyards

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As mentioned with my PROD, all of this is all simply expected sources about a local vineyard, consisting of local event listings, PR, interviews, funding news, local cases of local happenings, even the "largest Riesling wine company" of that area is still questionable for making this the needed substance. SwisterTwister  talk  04:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer – I was still working on adding sources, copy editing, etc., and the nominator just came along and nominated for deletion in the middle of this. It would have been nice to have had more time to work on the article. See also WP:OVERZEALOUS. North America1000 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD, the latter of which per having received national news coverage, book coverage, coverage in other U.S. states, and statewide coverage in the state of Oregon. More sources are available in addition to the examples I have listed below. Also, the description in the nomination about the sources is rather erroneous, inaccurate and subjective, as is over-usage of the word "local", and is based upon favoring deletion from the start. North America1000 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ( WP:AUD, national coverage, not "local")
 * ( WP:AUD: Based in Georgia )
 * ( WP:AUD: Based in Massachusetts )
 * ( WP:AUD: Statewide coverage )
 * ( WP:AUD: National coverage )
 * ( WP:AUD: National coverage )
 * ( WP:AUD: National coverage )
 * Statesman Journal
 * ( WP:AUD: National coverage )
 * Statesman Journal
 * Statesman Journal
 * Keep This is not a winery with just run-of-the-mill local coverage. This is a winery recognized regionally and nationally for excellent products and a unique funding mechanism. Very few wineries are listed on the NASDAQ. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's having its own acceptable sources to keep. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]


 * Keep - I am not a wine person, but I see news coverage of this publicly traded company fairly often. I know we do not have a guideline that says companies trading on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and the major foreign stock markets should automatically pass GNG, but a common sense approach is that most will pass the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What I seeing here is expect coverage for things such as event listings, pricing and client information, funding and financing, etc. None of that is actually substantial or convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  20:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Request that you take a third look at this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no special guideline for a WP:CORP, businesses just have to have the same range of coverage as any other entity to pass WP:GNG. This large, commercial vineyard gets a lot of regional coverage Statesman Journal, The Oregonian and so forth, but also some in out of region publications (example: feature story LATimes:), and, overall, enough pops up even in a simple news search to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:LISTED. A publicly traded company will almost always have sufficient coverage to meet NCOPR. Sources presented at this AfD are compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above but it is a good idea for future contributors to this article to  avoid promotional-sounding content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as satisfying GNG. In finding the requisite significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, I rely primarily on the Tims and Panichkul pieces provided by Northamerica1000 above, with the remaining, possibly less significant, coverage supplying the balance. Even though this looked to be a clear "keep," I spent about ten minutes doing my own research verifying the sources and re-reading the relevant guidelines before voting, which I suspect is far more than the nominator invested. In light of the multitude of qualifying sources presented in this discussion, many of which would have been found during a pre-nomination BEFORE, I strongly admonish the nominator to show more caution and restraint in future and to research subjects before nominating. Frivolous nominations like this waste a significant amount of the community's time, energy, and good faith.  I would also like to point out that audience (broader than local coverage) is an ORG/CORP requirement but does not apply to considerations under GNG. As organizations may satisfy GNG instead of ORG, exclusively local coverage is not preclusive of notability.  Rebb  ing  13:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the next editor along can close this WP:SNOWBALL., or can do other editors the courtesy of withdrawing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it is notable, but    most of it was originally written by the firm itself and a rather obvious sockpuppet. The version they produced was in my opinion a reasonable G11, and prodding it was conservative.However,   fixed it, and that should have been realized before nominating for AfD.  It's been fixed further, and it's less promotional  than many of our other articles in this field, which reflects some of the manner of writing about wine in the RW.   DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 17 August 2016 (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.