Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenWine Consortium

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 delete. lifebaka++ 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWine Consortium

WP:COI article written largely by the founder of this organization. As a member of WP:WINE, I looked into rewriting the article until I realized that I had hardly anything to work with because this organization hasn't received any mainstream coverage by independent, third party sources. The only things on the web are less than reliable blog entries written mostly by people that are members of this organization. Right now there is little to establish notability or to even verify it claims of membership and purpose. The organization is fairly new (Feb 2008) so it may eventually achieve notability and receive mainstream coverage by reliable sources. Hopefully then we'll be able to craft an article from scratch that was not written as an ad by the founder. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much I can add to Agne's sound argument. =Axlq 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your criteria is Public Relations? We haven't spent an time creating press releases and are known mostly in industry circles. Producing a conference for wine bloggers. Have mentions and discussion in prominent industry blogs (hardly considered "less than reliable"), have been referenced by and given educational talks at industry conferences (WITS and Inertia Beverage Direct To Consumer Symposium). Of course the people who've written about the organization are members of the organization because it has an open membership. Even the mainstream media that has written about the OWC are members of the site. Your reference to this article as an "ad by the founder" isn't appreciated because that was not the intention at all so you appear to be condescending when you say that. I think its important for you to understand this was meant as a legitimate entry. So we'll give this time and revisit later. With a better understanding of what needs to be done in order to have the article written I'll make sure you have what you need. Joel —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for my tone. Re-reading it, it does seem to come across as WP:BITE-ish. But there is a disconnect between the article and Wikipedia's policies. I recommend reading our policy on reliable sources to see why blogs (especially those written mostly by members) are considered "less than reliable" compared to mainstream independent, third party sources (like Wine Spectator, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc). I would also recommend reading our policies on conflict of interest and guidelines on how articles can end up sounding like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article--even if that is not your intent. One of the benefits of having editors without a COI edit the article is that their detachment adds to an objective and neutral portrayal. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has broader intentions beyond being simply a listing of organization and we are dependent on mainstream independent, third party sources to help establish notability and "encyclopedic-ness" of our article topics. As you noted, your organization hasn't had time to establish notability. That is fine. When it does start to garner notability and reliable sources become available, Wikipedia will be glad to have an article on it. But right now it falls outside our policies on several levels. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether the founder appreciates it or not, I will say it: This article appears to be an advertisement, written by someone with a clear conflict of interest. And this blog by the owner makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of having this article on Wikipedia is for publicity purposes. Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. Wikicompany may be a better venue. This article should be deleted, and the author should follow this guideline for re-creating it. =Axlq 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:CORP. Where are the reliable secondary sources about it? - Merzbow (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and the article as it stands is essentially an advertisement -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable (at the moment) Camw (talk) 02:08, 1 August 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.