Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amuse Bouche

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amuse Bouche

Added as part of an marketing campaign, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharaoh Moans and other contributions of this user. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Indeed, this user is nothing but a promoter. SubSeven 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak DeleteNot an easy one. The wine appears to have some mentions and article is sourced (although only 101 unique google hits with this search [1]). However, I don't know how much a google search is helpful for wine notability. The tip toward delete comes from WP:VAIN/Auto/Spam. This editor is definitely self-interested as noted in nom; see this diff.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible delete. See below--Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Possible redirect to Tapas although it's not quite the sameAmuse bouche. Angus McLellan (Talk) :22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Original author states here (and other places) that she is hired by companies to get their products on Wikipedia and in the first versions of the article, it was an ad. Nevertheless, User:Idp has do some fine work improving the quality of the article, adding the reviews and generally de-POVizing the text. In the end, however, the wine is not notable enough for inclusion. In order to be included the subject should be the subject of multiple articles in media. The article asserts three mentions, reviews in The Wine Advocate, The Wine Spectator, and The Washington Post. The issue is whether being the subject of a review should count as being the subject of an article. If it were to count, Wikipedia would have a lot of articles on wines as the first two publications review hundreds, even thousands of wines a year. So a review of a wine in one of these publications cannot count as the wine being the subject of an article for purposes of notability. The Washington Post publishes fewer reviews and has a broader circulation, but even if this review were to count as being the subject of an article, this would not satisfy the multiple articles requirement. JChap (Talk) 23:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is offensive and outrageous. We have enough to contend with--now we have people being paid to do nothing but spam, and probably in more and more sophisticated (i.e. sneaky) ways. I think this type of activity may be legally actionable if taken to certain heights, some area or tort law could apply such as intentional interference with business. I am changing my vote given the insidious basis for the edits and suggest that User:Kimcray be permanently banned as acting with the ultimate in bad faith, with goals that are fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia and as a precedent that should be set at the earliest possible time. I do not suggest this lightly but with sober reflection--Fuhghettaboutit 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although I agree with you about this being offensive and outrageous, I do not think she is all that sneaky or sophisticated. She mentioned on the new user help page that this is what she was doing. Hell, the article didn't even mention the Robert Parker review in The Wine Advocate until Idp added it. How incompetent do you have to be to try to promote a wine and not mention a postive review from Parker? Ultimately, though, I do not believe that the conduct of an editor is dispositive on whether an article should be kept. JChap (Talk) 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that she was sneaky, quite the opposite; a person who admits the activity she did is about as far from sneaky as it gets. I was suggesting (admittedly without perfect clarity) that once we have not isolated incidents but a cottage industry of people being paid to do this, it will become ever more sophisticated. While I agree that intent behind edits should not often be used as a basis for deletion, you'll note, for instance, that WP:AUTO is applicable regardless of how NPOV seeming a self-written article is. In this case, the nature of the edits so taints the material that I would vote to delete it if it was sourced to the teeth. File this under ignore all rules if you must.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, though, you should bring this activity up for discussion at WP:AN/I. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete more people using Wikipedia. Now they got dollar signs in their eyes. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Amuse bouche. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Kill, what a pernicious idea. And the article is still a blatant ad. The only way to clean it up to Wikjipedia's quality standards would be to remove the advertising bits, and that operation would leave it about six words long. "Tastemaker"? "Complexity and finesse"? "Unbridled intensity and power"? Gaaah. After the work users are said to have put in to NPOV this, the bland promospeak and the drainingly uninteresting information is stillas ill-conceived as the user's scheme for putting ads on Wikipedia. Don't clean it up, just delete it. And I also agree about permablocking a user who's only here for such a misuse of the project. Bishonen | talk 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment The quotes were all from third party wine reviewers, all of whom do serious reviews that are frequently noncomplimentary when wines deserve it. A 92 is high and these phrases are often used to describe wines that score like this. So it's not like this is a case of compiling "I loved it; it was much better than Cats" type promotional blurbs. If something sucks, we can describe it accurately without it being an attack page. If something's good, as this wine seems to be, we can describe that accurately as well without the article being an ad. JChap (Talk) 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Kimcray has been indefinitely banned--Fuhghettaboutit 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have found several other articles similar in nature and context that have not been flagged for deletion. See Beaulieu Vineyard, Château Haut-Brion, Clos Du Val Winery, Kendall-Jackson, Penfolds Grange, Ridge Vineyards, Yellow tail (wine) among many more. Although it is apparent that the original autor's intent is to advertise, she should be treated fairly, and if deleted, the other articles above should be discussed for deletion as well. I also agree that User:Idp"has do some fine work improving the quality of the article, adding the reviews and generally de-POVizing the text".--Zirka110:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) User's only edits, surprise, surprise.

• ...similar in nature and context... Only in the sense that, say, the Rolling Stones aare "similar in nature and context" to a high-schooler's garage band, or Thomas Keller is "similar in nature and context" to a line cook at Nation's Burgers in Vallejo. The equivalency ploy you're attempting -- besides being so old it has whiskers on it -- doesn't even pass the giggle test. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia: amazing how you found your way to this page, all loaded for bear, so very quickly, hmm? --Calton | Talk 10:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Whilst my instinct when previously editing the article (and I thank those who have commented kindly on my edits) was that Amuse Bouche had the potential to be considered notable, I'm now a little more reticent about the article. User:Zirka1 refers to a number of articles concerning wine producers, but the one which strikes me as most comparable is Penfolds Grange, an Australian producer also dubbed a 'cult wine' - however, whilst the Grange line is responsible for a number of decades worth of notable vintages, the praise for Amuse Bouche (however illustrious, and obviously, Parker is the ultimate in this field) centres on a single, very recent vintage. As Fuhgettaboutit said, google searches are probably lacking as barometers for notability of wine. I'd view a more accurate barometer as being a clear record of consistent mention in both the mainstream press and the wine press. Though the 2003 vintage of Amuse Bouche garnered some serious praise from some very influential sources, the lack of a more extensive track record means that, discarding the blatant advertisements of User:Kimcray, the only admissible material in the article is the brief but intense praise for one vintage. That's just not enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. Idp 21:02, 13 July 2006 (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.