Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messina Hof (2nd nomination)

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) Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined for both G4 (recreation of deleted material) and G11 (spam). This article has been deleted three times already. Continued recreation is borderline abuse. DarkAudit (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. G4 reads "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". The article, in its current state, is entirely different from that which was (rightly) speedy deleted. It's a good-faith creation from whole cloth by a perfectly respected Wikipedian. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a winery that meets the general notability guidelines.--kelapstick (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article not only passes WP:CORP but even the Wine Projects slightly more strict WP:WINERIES interpretation of winery notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After reconsidering this article, I think it deserves to be kept. Although it was started by someone with a conflict of interest, it does not reed like it is full of WP:SPAM, the point of view is fairly neutral, and does not read like an add (the article even includes a bit of controversy). Ignoring the fact that the first author's intention was spamming, the winery has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, thus meeting the standard in WP:ORG. I'm more ok with keeping this winery article than I would be with the Llano Estacado Winery article, which is the only other one in category:Texas wineries. – jaksmata 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complies with WP:RS, although admittedly it could contain more diverse sources. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also feel [this version of] the article does not appear to be WP:SPAM and meets our guidelines for inclusion. I would be interested to compare it to the version that was voted delete in the last AfD or even the versions that were speedied. Granted the original author came here paid by his client to create the article, but part of WP:COI is being up front with your COI which is supposed to lend you [a little] credibility. Although the Microsoft incident should be a warning to all not to pay someone to update your article.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, the current version, while a tad rambling (rapid shift to address label controversy without explaining why it was controversial and an equally rapid shift back to the original informative bits) argues only for copy-editing (which I think I might do right now), not deletion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to be going through these cycles--if you'll check the history, you'll see that I called for speedy deletion for spam purposes and then rewrote the entire thing, while Kelapstick and I (I assume ChildofMidnight) as in on this too were trying to explain to the original creator what our guidelines and standards were. This rewritten version is much like the one we produced months ago, and it meets guidelines. That this would have been speedied after all is strange--the editor who called for that speedy could simply have restored an earlier version, especially after the "spammer" was blocked--instead, here we are, taking up time and electrons with an AfD which, after my good pal Kelapstick cleaned up the article, seems like it's leading to a foregone conclusion: keep, perhaps with SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - over 500 Google news hits, combined with the fact that it seems to pass WP:CORP would imply to me that it is notable and should be kept. It's not perfect, but I think it's notable enough to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 05:03, 30 November 2009 (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.