Talk:Naked Wines

Assertion requires attribution?[edit]

"Naked Wines and Majestic Wines parted ways in 2019 and are no longer affiliated. " - This may be true, but shouldn't there be an attribution to a primary source?

67.189.190.227 (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WineWikipedia:WikiProject WineTemplate:WikiProject WineWine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I am contesting the speedy deletion of this page as it is a factual account of the Naked Wines business, which will have peoples attention due to the companies founder having previously set up competitor Virgin Wines

Gregbanbury (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Gormley is not notable, so it doesn't follow that the company should be notable just because he founded it. That leaves the issue of what is the company's claim to notability, which there isn't. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I have added some external references to add some weight to both the notibility of Gormley and of Naked Wines.

Gregbanbury (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. even if Gormley is notable that does not, in itself, make this company notable. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what I'm missing here - if the Naked Wines topic isn't notable, how is the Virgin Wines topic notable?

Gregbanbury (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several several references, a simple google search will turn up quite a few results. I believe that this article should now satisfy WP:GNG. If you disagree, open an AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you look at CSD#7 it says: This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. Because it made a claim of significance, you should have opened an AFD for it.Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've cleaned the article up a bit and added a few more references. Can someone explain why I'm still seeing the tags at the top of the page? Apologies, but new to Wikipedia!

Gregbanbury (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other editors, but see the note at the top of my user talk page about my schedule. I'll remove the unreferenced tag right now, and I'm having a rethink about notability as I reread it. —C.Fred (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think notability is met also. I've removed both tags from the top of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Naked Wines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Template Removal[edit]

I believe we can remove the maintenance templates at the top of this article, but don't want to do it myself because I have a conflict of interest. Since the templates were added in 2013, the article has largely been re-written, subjective/promotional language has been replaced with neutral language, sources cited around pricing, and so on. And the sections written in 2009 by somebody close to the company have mostly been replaced or built out by more impartial editors. There's probably still work to be done around why naked wines is notable (a subsidiary of publicly traded Majestic Wines, scale in three countries it operates in, and so on) but I think the edits so far already address the three maintenance template bullets. Thoughts? --Mroconnell (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flat bottle?[edit]

In the Business model section there's a mention of flat bottles, giving the impression that Naked Wines uses them exclusively or at least predominantly. This isn't the case, and I don't think it's even relevant to this article. Unless anyone has reasons to object, I'll delete that at some point. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has objected, I've now deleted this. It doesn't seem that the bottle is available on the NW website, so perhaps the trial didn't go anywhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]