Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearmund Cellars
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
— User:Ritchie333, 08:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SPS (Wikipedia:Verifiability)