Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champagne Salon

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 (non-admin closure) Chetblong^Talk_Sign 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Champagne Salon

Champagne Salon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Speedy-delete-tagged 09:14, 19 January 2008 by User:Dethme0w as advertisement. User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back asked me for undelete and told me that he intends to rewrite it and de-spam it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, naturally.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Sting au Buzz Me... 12:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a completely different article from the one I tagged as spam. If one were to remove all the promotion from its previous state, we would be left with a blanked page. Dethme0w (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep This isn't spam, and apparently this company has been critically acclaimed. --Kannie | talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A very notable wine brand and Fat Man has done a great job in removing the advert tone to where even the original tagging editor is satisfied. I'd like to work on getting this up to DYK and hope that AfD could be speedy closed soon. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, second to speedy, no question of notability or RS potential. Current article state far from initial weaselPOVvy form. MURGH ^disc. 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Amusing comment. We suspect the original author of this article was literally the sales director for this label's European distributor. See talk page; he copied language directly from his company's website. But if he hadn't done so, there wouldn't be an article about this notable label, so it turned out okay in the end..--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. It is a notable wine product, regardless of all the previous problems with the article. Plus in any event, this kind of ridiculously exclusive and expensive product hardly needs Wikipedia to promote it in the eyes of anyone who can actually afford it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• 'Keep, quite notable in the high-cost champagne category. I tried to de-advertise it a bit more. Tomas e (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.