Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine-Searcher

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-Searcher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedied as a G11 (promotional) but does appear to have a number of 3rd party sources, bringing to AfD for further review. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and even the listed news are still advertorial and searches so far are not finding convincingly better aside from a few guides. SwisterTwister talk 15:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like advertisement to me. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should probably be semi-protected to keep the COI editors out. Anyway, promotional tone can be fixed by editing, and I just did a quick pass through the article cleaning it up. Several of the sources are junk, but those sources that still work (like Forbes and Los Angeles Times) clearly meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was copy edited on 3 August 2016‎ after the nomination for deletion to address promotional tone. Of note is that this article in the Los Angeles Times provides significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I stated in my comment above that I made a pass through the article to clean it up. As it stands now, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage currently on the page. Looks like the cleanup helped. Yvarta (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (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.