Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Monte Carlo Vodka

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. No prejudice against recreation, but the consensus is that TNT is currently required. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Monte Carlo Vodka


promotional page for non notable vodka. G11 CSD was contested. No improvement in sourcing or content. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete they need to establish notability and I'm not seeing it. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. User:Newimpartial contested User:DGG's G11-tagging with "not spam". It is unambiguous promotion, of no use the the project, references included were useless.  Was not a reasonable G11 contest.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm still not sure about the content, but it is clearly linkspam. Note however, contra Legacypac, that they by no means have to establish notability in draft space.
 * Also, I do think cases like this, where the draftor went to the trouble of trying not to sound promotional, should go to MfD rather than a CSD process. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should review the draft creator's contributions, the quality of the references in the draft, note that it is textbook promotion, and agree that the page is textbook G11-able. Welcome the author by all means, be nice to him, but do not tolerate the blatant promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (obviously) :Agreed that there is no need to establish notability in Draft space. A draft doesn't even have to pass speedy A7 for an indication of importance. The intention is that the draft is there to be improved, which can normally be best done by adding references. But if it is fundamentally promotional, it needs to be started over.  DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have declined the G11 -- this isn't blatantly promotional. Indeed it is largely factual, but with the facts carefully selected to have a promotional effect. This could perhaps be edited into a valid article, but the chance is small.  is of course wrong, but I see no objection to deletion by consensus after discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that no one should be encouraged to start an article using promotional sources, and then find other sources afterwards to attest to notability. That feels like dishonest scholarship.  If the only sources are promotional, I think WP:TNT is called for.  No prejudice against the topic, but find independent sources before starting.  I think G11 was correct, because every word was sourced from an inappropriate source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.