Talk:Lichido

This looks like it was written by the company to promote the drink. Neutrality?

I requested a delete. It's absolutely an advertising placement- the article was created just after the product was marketed for the first time, and the writer calls herself Lichidogirl, and doesn't have any more articles. The graphic looks like it was taken from the product's official website.

the delete was removed by another user. Fine by me, but the article is obviously a product placement. The user who reverted the delete is generally opposed to gratuitous deletes, as indicated by his/her profile. I'll check back in a few days, but this is a non-notable product that will eventually be deleted as non-notable, if not by me, then by someone else. Richardjames444 00:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself. Added the importance template.

and the advert template. Richardjames444 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard.

I am Lichidogirl, and I sincerely feel Wikipedia is picking on me unfairly. Yes, I do happen to love Lichido (thus my name). I am trying to help spread the word about it. I do not work for the company or have anything whatsoever to gain from "advertising" Lichido (I have a friend who does their graphics). How does Lichido not belong in Wikipedia? Have you seen the "list of liqueurs"? Who judges which product is noteworthy and which isn't? I thought Wilkipedia was for sharing public information...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liqueurs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hpnotiq (are you kidding me? It's the same ad, different name)

I hope you agree with me on this matter and reverse your request to delete this product. The public does deserve to know about it, and it does belong on your own legitimate list. --Lichidogirl 12:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Check on WP:CORP for inclusion guidelines. While I can honor your love for the product, I don't think that it qualifies. I'm not going to push my POV any further, and the community will decide what happens to the article. Good luck.

Richardjames444 12:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Who decided this product lacks importance, as compared to other liquors on wikipedia? And based on what?

http://www.novusvinum.com/spirits/lichido.html

http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/lichido_liqueur.html

http://www.drinktrader.com/node/77/product

http://www.liquorsnob.com/archives/2006/07/lichido_liqueur_review.php

http://martini-lounge.blogspot.com/2006/07/4th-of-july-and-lichido.html

http://www.luxist.com/2006/07/14/lichido

http://cocktails.about.com/b/a/257572.htm

http://www.frank151.typepad.com/frank151

http://www.theliquidmuse.blogspot.com

I noticed some of the wording is suspiciously similar to that on the <a href="http://www.webtender.com/iforum/message.cgi?id=63562">Webtender site</a>, which apparently is not a surprise:

Webtender: "Lichido is imported from France by Transatlantic Spirits LLC, a tiny family-run company whose only product is Lichido. It is made of vodka, cognac, lychee and guava essences and white peach juice. It was first launched in NY in May of 2006. It is 36-proof and comes in 750 ml bottles."

The Current Wiki Page: "Lichido is a lychee liqueur made with vodka, Cognac, lychee and guava, essences and white peach juice. It is 36 proof and comes in 750 ml bottles. It is imported from Cognac, France by Transatlantic Spirits LLC, which is based in New York. It was launched in New York in May of 2006."

For now, I'll clean it up a bit (the first Cognac link currently goes to Cognac, France, when the second one should). And who cares about the bottle size? I think that sounds like an ad. I don't know that the article should be deleted, but if it stays, it should be watched for issues relating to POV and advertising puffery.--Strangepalefighter 13:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lichido. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809174254/http://spiritjournal.com/tastenote.htm to http://www.spiritjournal.com/tastenote.htm

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) 10:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)