Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Mountain Vineyards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
Cooper Mountain Vineyards[edit]
The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cooper Mountain Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Another non-notable winery. Per WP:CORP I cannot find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Withdraw now that appropriate sources have been added. Merzbow (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You should have placed a {{db-corp}} tag on it instead, in my opinion. Easier than an AFD for such things, and that article appears to qualify for speedy delete. =Axlq 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I prodded it, which was promptly removed without comment, so I imagine the same would have occurred to a CSD nom. Sigh... - Merzbow (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I contested the prod. Sorry if you felt more commentary was needed, but I expected you to promptly take it to Afd so why bother? If you're going to sigh, I guess you shouldn't nominate things for deletion. I have it on good authority that this winery is certainly notable (while Quailhurst certainly is not). I'll see what I can come up with for references. Katr67 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been more polite to wait until you'd found the references first before removing the prod. There's no rush with a prod, it stays up for 5 days. Doing things in the opposite order on a good-faith prod with no explanation (and on an article with no sufficient references) feels like a slap in the face, to be honest. - Merzbow (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I contested the prod. Sorry if you felt more commentary was needed, but I expected you to promptly take it to Afd so why bother? If you're going to sigh, I guess you shouldn't nominate things for deletion. I have it on good authority that this winery is certainly notable (while Quailhurst certainly is not). I'll see what I can come up with for references. Katr67 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I prodded it, which was promptly removed without comment, so I imagine the same would have occurred to a CSD nom. Sigh... - Merzbow (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Not terribly notable, but Eastmain added some sources, so it seems to pass WP:COPR. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 31 July 2008 (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.