Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamGuy (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 26 May 2009 (→Mendel Winery: response to editor misrepresented sockpuppet report). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mendel Winery

Mendel Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about obscure winery in Argentina. No references, and external links are the company website, a trivial mention (only in one paragraph of a short trivial article) on a publication online that looks like it's probably one of those places that just reprints press releases submitted to it (so not an independent source) and some listing on a website trying to list all wineries: trivial and not reliable for information. Need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish any notability at all to be mentioned in any article, and needs more than that to have an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a consumer business making material goods and selling them under its own brand. The Wine Spectator is a reliable source, and their coverage of this winery includes not only the linked interviews but apparently several product reviews hidden behind a paywall. I removed the unreferenced tasting notes, which did seem spammy to me; perhaps a Wine Spectator subscriber could add references to the reviews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So if you consider Wine Spectator to be a reliable source, what are the other independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would meet the multiple sources requirements for having an article? DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. I do not consider one brief mention in the June 2006 issue of the Wine Spectator to be enough (even though the WS itself can be considered reliable and independent). The second source is an unnotable wine portal, and the third source provided in the company's own website! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a notable winery with independent and reliable sources as referred to in the article. Varbas (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• But like I pointed out above, only one of the 3 sources (Wine Spectator) is independent and reliable! and it only contains a trivial entry in June 2006! The other two sources are not independent (winery's own website) and/or un-notable (wine portal). The article as it stands does not show notability, and neither does the source! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates