Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin

Sacred Gin

Sacred Gin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No significant coverage in secondary sources means that this fails WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to promote the brand/product. Author claims that mocrodistilleries are about to become notable, but the doesn't mean that this one is notable, nor is wikipedia a crystal ball. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY - The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area. "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 3 newspaper articles about to be published (one now published) about this new Sacred Gin microdistillery phenomenon. Namely in The Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Evening Standard, and The Camden New Journal. Please do not nominate this article for deletion yet. thanks. UPDATE: There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY - The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area. "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki (talk • contribs)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't in good conscience say otherwise when three articles are about to be published on account of WP:CRYSTAL. This is great and all, but still. That, and this sounds more like a promotional article to begin with, aside from the notability issues. On top of that, the article is all over the map - explains briefly the gin, and then goes into recipes to be used, amongst other things. If it's to stay, it needs to be notable, and needs a rewrite as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Delete. I believe this is the first article I've ever seen in which not a single one of the references and external links even mentions the article's topic. There are zero relevant Google Web, News, or Books hits for either the name of the product or the name of its supposed manufacturer. Complete failure of WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. This consumer product may, some day, have independent reviews in edited publications, and as such may qualify for an article. At the present I cannot find any. But I think I need to change my religious faith to one where gin is properly revered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This consumer product is part of a phenomenon which is of significant interest to distillers and consumers of distilled products worldwide. The author should be given the benefit of the doubt for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If, as your post on the talk page of this discussion seems to indicate, you are User:Inhwiki, please strike out the boldfaced "Keep" in the preceding comment. A user gets to express only one such boldfaced opinion in an AfD discussion. Deor (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. There is no benefit of any doubt here as the complete lack of sourcing leaves no doubt on notability much less verifiability. Note that the company's purported website is a coming soon page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, not any more it's not coming soon. Nicely layed out site. Unfortunately for the creator of the article, that still doesn't make it notable.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.sacredgin.com and the 'About us' page on that site. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article pre-dates the website content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yet another example of TrulyBlue's biased and extreme commentary. - Speedy delete on unfair and unsafe grounds? - this is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - "First microdistillery of its kind in Britain to stock local pubs" - Ham&High 14th May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment What is it with TrulyBlue? Why is this generating such an unbalanced level of comments from one person? Surely TrulyBlue's comments are out of proportion, and inappropriately dismissive? there is entry after entry after entry from TrulyBlue. Does he/she have an undeclared interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I have just been drinking Sacred Gin in G&T form in my Highgate pub. I was interested to try it after reading about it in the Ham and High and was pleased to discover more about it in Wikipedia, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about.

Comment The above comment was posted by an account making their first ever edit to Wikipedia. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I assume your comment is making a sideways accusation of sockpuppetting. However, you will find this is not the case. There are now 800 hits per day on the Sacred Gin wikipedia entry, and a lot of people are getting useful information from it, notwithstanding TrulyBlue's attempt to delete. Why is it getting 800 hits per day? BECAUSE IT IS NOTABLE AND IMPORTANT!

What is it with you guys trying to delete this? Haven't you got real contributions? This is something real that is happening, that you are trying to snuff out - but for what reason? I'm sure you are not really the trolls you seem to be. Can you give it a rest please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sky Attacker - do you have association with TrulyBlue? It seems as if you are associated given the speed of your response. If so would you please observe Wikipedia's rules on identification and conflict of interest. If not - please explain your sudden interest in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have just been informed that the reason that the "Sacred Gin" Wikipedia article is generating so much interest is because one of the detractors is directly associated with a rival gin. This is extremely dishonest and very much against the principles of Wikipedia. I really think this is intolerable. I note that there is a certain rival Gin with a blue bottle as its trademark...