Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Can Museum

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Can Museum

Beer Can Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Private collection. Owner claims that the Wiki entry has brought him 30 visitors in one year: [1]. No credible sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no assertion of notability. Possible CSD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several assertions of noteability - the collection is large and has been featured in international media. The fact that the collection is private does not mean it is non-noteable - private collections form an important part of preservation and display for many art and craft media. Sourcing is an issue for better editing, not deletion. Bacchiad 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. On Lexis-Nexis I found discussion of the "museum" in the New York Times and Boston Globe, plus the entry claims it has been written about in a number of other publications. The sourcing obviously needs to be improved, but clearly notability has been asserted. I'm not entirely convinced this is in fact notable, but I'm going to err on the side of keep on this one. Also I would note that the owner did not say the Wiki article brought him 30 visitors in one year, he posted one comment about 30 visitors coming to his "museumfest"--i.e. it was 30 visitors in one day--and he posted another entry saying the Wiki article probably led to him getting more e-mails about his collection.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes - I see that. "30 guests this year" relates to the one day only "Museumfest". However, it is still something that has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and is one of many such private beer can collections which would also have been given a cursory mention in a newspaper which would be doing an article on the Brewery Collectibles Club of America [2]. I think an article on collecting brewerania might stand up, and as such the Brewery Collectibles Club of America would get a mention and one or two of the more notable of the private collections. Would this one be among the most notable? 3,000 cans is not a lot. As far as beer collecting goes, that's not a huge number. Coming from a beer collecting fraternity [3] and [4] where respect is only given to those who collect 5K or more,[5]. [6] I can say that 3K is not notable. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You could be right about the notability thing, I just don't even know how to determine it other than by coverage in secondary sources. There's been at least some, and the article asserts there is more though I did not find it, so I still hold to a weak keep on this one. Your links seemed to primarily about scooping, which I take it is the consumption of different beers rather than collecting beer cans or bottles, or is it both? In any case it sounds like fun!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

People collect various beer related things. Scoopers mainly collect beers, but many will also collect the bottle or caps or labels or pump clips - Dale has over 13,000 pump clips, and his site is extensively used by the beer collecting community in the UK. He'll have numerous links on Wiki. Some beer collectors will build special cellars to hold their collections. It's an interesting hobby. Personally I just drink the beer - though I have kept a few special bottles that I have drunk. My bottle of Bass King's Ale from 1902 I kept after I drunk the contents! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to have abundant mentions to make it notable, and the verifiability comes from their own website. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you have done. However, I am still not convinced that sentences like "the Mustard Museum or The Beer Can Museum or the nut museum" quite fulfill "Significant coverage" which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." The sources appear to prove the place exists, but don't quite prove the notability. Look again at WP:N and at sentences such as "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." My point is that mere mentions of a place does not signify notability, and that Wiki editors over time and through consensus have drawn up guidelines for situations like this. I don't see convincing arguments for Beer Can Museum's notability. What I see is assumptions that if a place has been briefly mentioned in several newspapers it will confer nobility by default, which is not what our guidelines are saying! Where does the article or the sources assert notability? The number of cans is not large in itself, nor is the number in itself considered significant: WP:BIG. The act of collecting brewerania is not by itself significant or notable. The collection has few visitors. What we have is a description of someone's private (and average) beer collection which has been mentioned, along with other such collections, in a handful of newspapers. Where exactly is the notability? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability isn't the biggest, or the best. Thats for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Verifiable. Sufficently expanded/cleaned. A side note: the nominator seem to have, like, a fit of beerphobia, judging from his recent edit history :-) no big deal, but sorta funny for a confessed beerdrinker. `'Míkka 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

:-) I know what you're saying. But I have a triviaphobia rather than a beer phobia! I'd prefer to merge minor material into more significant articles than to delete, but when there is no reasonable article into which to merge, or when the material is particularly trivial, then I will suggest or support a deletion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The references so carefully quoted, are merely mentions, listing it among a number of other curiosities. WP covers notable local museums, certainly, notable because they are considered important in some way--not listed in articles giving a list of what is not important, as the NYTimes, or mentioned in an exhaustive list of everything to see in a particular village. Thee are many uses of the word "trivia" one is the peripheral aspects of important things that help in understanding them and their influence--that's encyclopedic. Another is things that have no importance but are just part of the world--they are not encyclopedic. The guidelines just express common sense. Let's put it this way--if the most expansive article here imaginable can get it only a handful of visitors , and the manager quotes this as notable success, then even in WP was for advertising, it wouldn't be worth it. There's a limit to rational inclusionism, and this is beyond it. If we want remarkable collections of beer, there are some very notable stores in my part of Brooklyn. DGG (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The museum is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-trivial sources about the subject, far surpassing our standards for verifiability. RFerreira 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. passed notability standards for me... maybe i should head down and take some CC-by photos to illustrate some of our articles from WikiProject:Beer.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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.