Talk:Folie a deux winery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is commercial linkspam. It should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
- The comment above was deleted by Lucy45. I have restored it. This editor should understand that it is considered unacceptable to delete material from talk pages. The article itself is clear linkspam and should be nominated for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
-
-
- I apologise if I have used the term linkspam incorrectly. The article reads as an advertisement for a commercial activity. It has little content of notability if any. See Wikipedia:Spam-1. Advertisements masquerading as articles. It could be useful to run it through the AfD process and let it stand or fall on its merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
- I don't see how this article is promotional in tone or is otherwise an advertisement masquerading as an article. If you feel that the winery does not meet, notability, then that is another matter. -- Whpq (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apologise if I have used the term linkspam incorrectly. The article reads as an advertisement for a commercial activity. It has little content of notability if any. See Wikipedia:Spam-1. Advertisements masquerading as articles. It could be useful to run it through the AfD process and let it stand or fall on its merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
-
[edit] Not linkspam
Please do not remove the Folie a Deux Winery link from the Folie a Deux page. Thank you very much. I would also like to add that I am a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia and I am trying very hard to adhere to all the standards. I appreciate your Folie a Deux page, and I feel the winery is a valid link due to my participation in WikiProject Wine.Lucy456 (talk)
[edit] Folie a deux winery
I've reverted your removal of the external link in Folie a deux winery. An external link to the website of the article subject is compliant with WP:EL, and spcifically, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." If you fee that the article itself is spam, then you could propose it for deletion, but I don'y see how it is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The two comments above were placed on my talk page. I have put them in their proper place, which is the talk page of the article concerned. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

