A tag has been placed on Sipsmith, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Sipsmith and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. HalfShadow 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sacred Gin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sipsmith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sipsmith has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://cheesenbiscuits.blogspot.com/2009/06/sipsmiths-distillery-hammersmith.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Sacred Gin meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Deor (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. William Avery (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.40.7 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Specifically, you are welcome to add your comments to the deletion discussion, but do not modify or delete anybody else's comments. —C.Fred (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sacred Spirits Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CardinalDan (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sacred gin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sacred gin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Hairhorn (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sacred microdistillery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beefeaterdrinker! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I noted the "hangon" tag you applied to Sacred microdistillery and the arguments you advanced on its affiliated talk page. However, I find upon investigation that this article, under the title Sacred gin, has previously failed two Articles for Deletion (AfD) processes, found at WP:AfD/Sacred Gin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination). I know you are aware of the second one since your contribution history indicates that you contributed to it and tried to blank it. I also note that you are close to being banned for repeatedly recreating articles about this company. The closing administrator in the second AfD process noted that even if further references could be found, this would be a case for deletion review, and I agree. I have therefore created a "sandbox" page at User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox which contains the deleted material and I advise you not to recreate this material until after it has passed Deletion review, if indeed it does. I also recommend that you familiarize yourself more closely with the relevant Wikipedia policies before proceeding, because you're close to being barred from any further contribution to Wikipedia under any circumstances. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, the links in this paragraph should provide you with more detailed explanations. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:REFUND is not the place to resolve the above explained situation as you already have the text in your sandbox.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am trying to submit the article "Sacred microdistillery" for deletion review, but I can't seem to do it correctly - can someone help? It is not at all clear to me how to do this correctly, which is why I am falling foul of the AfD rules. Please help! Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Accounting4Taste's comments, it's apparent that the discussion has run far enough where WP:DRV is the appropriate venue. The instructions at WP:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review are pretty step-by-step. Remember that the deletion you're challenging is the recent speedy deletion as a repost of previously-deleted material and not the outcome of the prior AfD. Do you need technical assistance with the template? —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply both here and on my talk page. I agree with User:C.Fred; WP:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review seems quite clear to me also. I can add that arguments that are not based on specific Wikipedia policies are unlikely to be successful; you may want to examine Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) carefully for useful information. I note also that an examination of your recent contributions shows that you haven't actually contributed anything to any deletion review process; the link in this sentence, WP:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review, will take you directly to the correct page. Some people find such processes easier to navigate if they have two windows open simultaneously so that they can keep the directions in front of them and do the application in the other window; you might try that.Accounting4Taste:talk 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have entered the wrong data on the wrong page for deletion review. I have replied to your request for further assistance on my talk page, found by clicking on the word "talk" after my name, and providing you with a step-by-step instruction of what to do and how to do it. Good luck with the process. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the steps and make sure all were completed:

Then go back to the list of steps and follow steps 3 and 4; you must inform the administrator who deleted the page, me, by adding the code (and changing the phrase PAGE_NAME to the name of the page in question) to my talk page.

I don't see where you notified Accounting4Taste of the deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred - I will improve the page according to the various helpful suggestions I have had, and then submit for deletion review again, and make sure that I notify Accounting4Taste. I hope that is OK procedure wise, it will probably be a week or 2. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, you should have notified Accounting4Taste about the deletion review that is currently ongoing. Then, before the next submission, contact him and have him look over the candidate text: he may say it's different enough that it can go up without going through DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to not consult me before proceeding directly to deletion review. I am not endorsing the idea that you simply return the article to mainspace without consulting me, merely that I believe deletion review will be required because of this article's history. Although you may assume that I am aware of the current deletion review process, it would still be appropriate for you to notify me in writing, as per the above. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred and Accounting4Taste - I have added some citations, and will add some more info I have gleaned from the new articles that I have found - would you tell me if this is going in the right direction now? this is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox#cite_note-5 thankyou for your time Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred - thankyou for your input. I have replaced where I can the links with the originals, also have included a link to the Imbibe tasting, and the BBC news story as you suggested, together with a Wired magazine article to make the distillation process and temperatures more accurately described. Maybe not perfect, but do you think it is OK to send it back to DRV and notify Accounting4Taste yet? best wishes Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think it's ready for a DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello C.Fred, and Accounting4Taste, I have now submitted this for deletion review, though I realise further work may be required.Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment by C.Fred as of 14 Feb 2009 18:42[edit]

Note: In all cases, the article links are PDFs housed on the Sacred Spirits website. While it would be preferable to have links to the original sources, I don't see any indication that the PDFs are forged.

1. "The Still Life": Extensive coverage about the subject, and it comes from caterersearch.com, the website of Caterer and Hotelkeeper magazine.
2. "Life After the City": Supplementary source that focuses more on Hart than the company. Based on the link in the sidebar, Financial News published the story.
3. Urban Foodie: The problem with this source is that it looks like a blog. I don't see it meeting the WP:RS criteria. Not reliable.
4. List of bars: List from the distillery. While it shows that the gin enjoys somewhat wide distribution, there's a verifiability issue. Primary source.
5. "Small Is Beautiful": Profile on multiple small distilleries. However, Sacred was one of four profiled, and it got about a half-page total coverage from Imbibe magazine.
6. "Quality Will Out": Demonstrates that it won the award; what's unclear is whether there were only two gins entered in the class or whether there were more. Regardless, it demonstrates that it won an award, although an award from The Spirits Business is not clearly a major award.

I also note that unmentioned in the article is the BBC story about microdistilleries [1]. The article splits coverage between Sacred and Sipsmith. However, the fact that it received a half-article's worth of coverage from a BBC business reporter is one more feather in its cap for WP:GNG purposes.

If a source can be provided for the assertion that it placed as well as it did in the other Spirits Busines blind testing, and if the BBC story can be integrated into the article, I think the article meets GNG, and I would support recreation—and, if relisted, support keeping it in a third AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You're recieving this message as a contributor to WikiProject Spirits in the past. Currently many members work solo and articles that interest themselves, we'd like to pull the Spirits group together to allow us to raise the overall quality of articles under our banner. If you're still active on Wikipedia and keen on contributing to WikiProject Spirits, head over to the talk page and lend your voice to the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to Highgate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not even vaguely appropriate. I have blocked this account until I am satisfied that you will not attempt to reinsert it. Your edits exactly repeat edits by an anonymous user, giving a storng impression that you logged out in order to protect your account. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]