Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champagne in popular culture

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 --JForget 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne in popular culture[edit]

Reads like an essay, and the title doesn't really doesn't relate to the article's content. Likely contains OR, no sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Give me a chance to add info, refs etc – the article is barely 5 minutes old! --mikaul^talk 19:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Champagne (wine). If it grows too big to remain a section in that article, then break it off. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The creation of this article was the result of a discussion over at WikiProject_Wine about the frequent apperance of pop-culture references in article of individual champagne houses, and the sometimes questionable creation of separate articles for individual champagnes. It was felt that the creation of a separate article on this subject (since the main Champagne (wine) article is rather long as it is) could be a way of increasing the encylopedic value of information presently strewn out in separate articles, as well as being a tool to "clean up" certain other champagne-related articles. Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is, in effect, a spinoff from Champagne, specifically this section. Content at present is drawn from said section, a slightly more concise version of which will form the basis for the lead of a much longer page. I envisage the proposed page will be similar in approach and scope to Absinthe in popular culture, except Champagne is probably a more pervasive cultural phenomenon with a much greater body of respected work written on the subject. --mikaul^talk 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Whoa Nelly Keep! As Mick referenced above, this article was created after a discussion on the Wine Project about how to deal with a problem article listed on WP:AN/I and the general cultural/pop culture notes that are popping up in champagne related articles. While this article is in its infancy, it is undoubtedly encyclopedic and notable like the Extraterrestrial life in popular culture, Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, Albinism in popular culture, Orangutans in popular culture or even Wikipedia in culture articles. Once expanded to its full potential, the contents will overwhelm the Champagne (wine) article and so a merge is not very viable. The timing of this AfD is very unfortunate and too hasty, especially given the track record of the editor who created the article and the Wikipedia Project behind it. There was nothing to indicate that this new article was not going to develop into one of Wikipedia's other quality wine articles like International Grape Genome Program, History of Rioja wine, Tempranillo, etc. I suggest withdrawing this AfD and giving the Wine Project a few days to work on the article. If any editor still does not feel that it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia then a new AfD can started. But this current one is way too premature. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a great deal of RS material to be sourced for this article given a little time, and "likely contains OR, no sources" nomination is off the mark. MURGH ^disc. 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sending to AfD 2 minutes after article creation is not an assumption of good faith. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, and although it took the wine project more than 2 minutes to bring the article up to its normal standards, it's certainly there now. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point a very clearly-sourced article, showing clear notability. Had I had not been involved in related discussions, I would close as a snow keep. Perhaps someone else will. DGG (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stand back as I shock the community and !vote keep for an IPC article. This is the way that IPC articles should be. Actual sourced discussion of the topic, not just lists of "this one guy said 'champagne' on TV this one time" trivial crap. In saying that, I strongly urge editors to watch the "Modern day" and especially the "In movies" sections as they have a lot of potential to attract reams of just the sort of "look, champagne!" crufty garbage that are the ruination of most IPC articles. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the added note that I believe this is the first time ever I've supported any type of "...in popular culture" type article. Why? Because this is actually an article, complete with sources, rather than a bulleted list of trivial trivia. RFerreira (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per pretty much everybody above. Circeus (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No "so-and-so said 'champagne' in passing" in this article. Nice work, wine project. Brad (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Otto4711. This one may be a snowball keep. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.