Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonmead

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonmead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been round for more than nine years but the only reference is to a local newspaper. I am a great fan of microbreweries and their products but unfortunately they are, almost by definition, very local things which cannot qualify for this encyclopedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient coverage exists; see for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There's enough there to hang an article on, in my opinion. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepStrong Keep There has been coverage. Finding it may take some time. I don't have easy access to archival copies of the Detroit News, Macomb Daily and Detroit Free Press. Meanwhile, you and your fellow admins have deleted all the material that was on the page, and left the bowdlerized version. Which you now deem promotional and not sufficiently covered.

You deleted this without notice to any of the major contributors, and with instant deletion, if a notice was posted at all. It was restored. You immediately followed up with WP:PROD. Looking at the whole transaction, this is a self fullfilling prophecy and a kangaroo court. I will WP:AGF, and hope that this only looks bad, and that we can develop this article further.

I have added lots of compelling content and citations. Q.E.D., this is a "Strong Keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Just signing and dating the changes I just made above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the prior article talk page which was deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage history restored; I've also added the references mentioned above to the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have just selected at random ten breweries whose brews were on sale at the Rochford Beer and Cider Festival 2014. the analysis is: 1 - too big to count as micro, 1 - has an article but it is hopelessly stubby and unreferenced (created by an experience editor who ought to know better!), 1 mentioned in the Beer in England article, 7 no article but I suspect that for any of them I could find references comparable to those offered for Dragonmead. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to @RHaworth:: You're a very capable admin, with loads of experience in notability issues. Why do you think that the links presented by Yunshui are insufficient for passing WP:GNG (and thereby WP:V)? --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient sourcing to establish notability under the GNG. Also a trouting is in order for an inappropriate use use speedy deletion by RHaworth - there were many past revisions without the slightest hint of promotionalism. Can I get any article I want speedy deleted by dumping promotional text into it now? Additionally, speedy deletion is only for unambiguous advertising, not mere promotional language, and the text and the time of deletion did not meet that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RH made a mistake; we all do from time to time. Let's focus here on the merits of keeping/deleting the article, rather than arguing whether the original CSD was justified or not. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 36 references. Putting aside the procedural snafu, RHaworth may have been right about about the lack of sources when he unilaterally deleted it, but his analysis has no application to the article as presently constituted. WP:GNG and WP:V are amply fulfilled. WP:Snow and WP:Speedy keep in February? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Hafspajen (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to more than adequately meet the hurdle of GNG. Some small local companies are more notable than others. If that's down to their promotional efforts, then kudos to their promotional efforts, but we can't take a view on that. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted notice of this debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, though this is being turned into a truly dreadful, excessively detailed promotional article based largely on beer websites and 'stuff on the internet'. My initial reaction was a firm 'Delete' but, taking into account the few Detroit news articles and couple of book sources, the company probably squeaks over the notability line. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks notable and the article seems to be well-sourced. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was the page when it was nominated for deletion. The article has been very well developed by 7&6=thirteen and clearly meets GNG. The article is vastly improved and provides and overview of the history, product and recognition received. A clear keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are now 44 references and more than a dozen notes, including inter alia the Chicago Tribune. Lots of other references from around the country. I presume that this discussion will close in the next day or two. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but the article is nauseatingly promotional. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.