Deletion of Pearmund Cellars

Comment: A run-of-the-mill promotional article created by a single-purpose-account, no notability outside of routine local coverage, thus a failure of .  Just another day at AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Enough. Let's forget about calling other editors "deletionists" and concentrate on the notability of Pearmund Cellars. One of the problems for me is that some of the sources presented are offline, so it's hard for me to verify that the coverage of them is ''reliable'' and ''significant''. However, a quick search through reveals that iUniverse, History Press and Apprentice House appear to all be |self published sources, and the USA Today source has a passing mention to the vineyard. I haven't checked all 16 sources in depth, but it looks like all the others are on the same lines - promotional, not really significant coverage. When they've got coverage in things like http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eKsy97hfLYUC this, we can talk about an article, but until then there's not really enough to make an encyclopedia article out of this, I'm afraid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: Lack of  from independent, non-local sources to support the idea that the winery has any kind of notability outside of it's small local region. If this was a local Virginia pizzeria there would be no doubt about the lack of notability. There is no reasons why wineries should be held to a lower threshold of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)