Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Coast Beer Company

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 Delete. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emerald Coast Beer Company

Emerald Coast Beer Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable beer company. No independent reliable sources provided. Initial author may have conflict of interest as hasn't edited anything outside of this company's page/beers. Optigan13 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because, Beer made by above company:

Emerald Coast Pilsner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Comments by User:Pat Long & direct replies

Pat, and others, I've separated this out like this to make it easier for administrators to read everyone's opinions when it comes time to close this. I don't mean to set you apart or anything, but since you've posted a lot, this helps to clean things up a bit. I hope you understand. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable There is no reason to mark them for del you just are doing it because I am new at this. All of these drink companies are important the energy drink company is the only one in the world like it and the beer company is the only working one based in Alabama it looks like you just like to put thinks on real / imported info that means to me you don’t do your research before and that make you and others like you look a kid I am new at this and this is hard for me to do. I worked over 8hr on the energy drink today it would be nice if you would help people like me. I know the owners and they are good people that is how I I have the info on the companies. PAT LONG --Pat Long (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Long (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable becouse I know someone thats a conflict I dont think so. I you wont conflicts all the other beer/brewer in Alabama where done by there owners and there name is in history report --Pat Long (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Notable only beer company in Alabama --Pat Long (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Notable The ATF our government said so!!!!!!!--Pat Long (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Explaining Hi Pat, I'm afraid that the government didn't say they were notable to the standards of Wikipedia. We need news or other published coverage or critiques of the product to establish notability. For example, just because you register a corporation with your local department of state it doesn't make that company automatically notable. You should read WP:N WP:RS WP:CORP and WP:OR. If you can satisfy those criteria then I'm sure no one will dispute the notability of this company. You have to understand that Wikipedia isn't the real world per se... it's a community website with certain missions and goals with guidelines about how the community should achieve those objectives. You need to understand the "rules" so to speak. They're in place to insure a certain level of quality control and don't represent any attempt to defame article subjects, like the ones you obviously respect a great deal. This isn't personal and it's a mistake that is often made by new editors. Please do read the guidelines I've linked and try to think of ways to improve the article based on those guidelines. That's the easiest and fasted way to make sure your article stays in this wiki.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable I just read Notable WP:N WP:RS and to get a beer though the ATF and all the background that is done on the companies and the people that is very Notable at the highest standards if it were so easy there would be hundreds of beer company’s and there is only two in Alabama that have a licensee and Emerald Coast is the only one in business. There are less then 120 in the US.--Pat Long (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry Pat, but I still don't quite think you're understanding this correctly. I'm sure it very difficult to use the Trapeze at the circus (sorry, running low on the metaphors today) but that doesn't make everyone who is a trapeze artist notable. They would have to have been written about in reliable third party publications. If there was a book written about Emerald Coast's journey trying to get approved by the ATF you would have a great start toward notability. Does this make sense? If you want to ask me questions on my talk page I'll gladly try to help as best I can.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NO i don't get it. I look at all the other beer companys and Emerald Coast is more Notable then 90% of them HELP. I a man goes to the moon that is Notable if the Gov said he went. You make it sound like if the press talks about you it make you Notable? I can make some phone call get the press to wright BS about a company how dose that make it Notable? Notable is in the laws we live by and the law (GOV) said it is one of a kind or one of two. And the name on Wikipedia has been up for 10 months why now? It is becouse I put up more work that is wrong.--Pat Long (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable Beer brewing companies in the United States by state|AlabamaAlabama--Pat Long (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say that no one is singling you out because you are either new or trying to contribute to the project. I just wanted to make that clear. The idea of notability is that third parties have taken notice of something unique or special about the company and written on the subject (in essence). Let's use your man on the moon example. The moon landing was covered live on television and written about for decades. The idea behind notability isn't just that some paper wrote about something, but it's a start. There being 120 breweries in the United States doesn't actually make any of them notable, but companies that have proved themselves to the public at large or to experts on the subject as being unique will find a place here. Wikipedians need to be able to verify all the information that is presented on the project and without reliable third party sources there is simply not way to separate fact from fiction. Also, the government's approval doesn't make something notable. If we were using that logic every licensed driver, hunter, gun owner, corporation and manufacturer would be notable. Being licensed for business is part of doing business and because a brewery owner decides to go through the process and qualifies just means they're in the game, not that they are somehow worthy of encyclopedic coverage. All that said, maybe you should call the local paper and get a story written on the brewery. Maybe the brewery should send sample product to beer critics... either of those thing would be a good start toward making this article better.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That has been done and it is out there. Diamond Bear Brewing Company why are they Notable? and I will make ECBC as notable as they are and if you go to beer companys by States how can you have Alabama and not ECBC????--Pat Long (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Yes I was singling out because I either new or trying to contribute to the project that is what this is about!!!!!!!!!! " a look back at my history"--Pat Long (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that article to my attention. As you can see I have made preliminary steps toward sourcing and improving the article [1]. I didn't take all of the information I found, but I did link several unique resources that I felt help add both notability and value to the article. Later I hope to expand on the stub and use those sources as in-line citations for the content I write based on the information the links provide.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable Someone let me know how you can have Categories about US beer companys and not list all the companys. Or how can you list them by State like Alabama and not have all the beer company in that state. If you wont to say large company you need to come up with the size WIK makes has the CATEGORIES and that is why it should stay *Notable --Pat Long (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories are made by editors, just like us. Someone might have wanted to place every brewery in America there, but they might be mistaken and that category or list can easily end up at AFD just the same as your article has.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you've done well with this source [2] Just a few more like it and you should be in business.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

but that's a blog, and I think blogs are generally not reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Trav, I thought it was a blog based around some area newspaper called "The Temrinal" but I just read their terms of use and it says anyone can post to it so it's useless as a primary source [3].--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

you should first remove the Categories not the names in them remove Beer companys in Alabama then make the Name/Company stan on its on.--Pat Long

The categories and everything else need to be evaluated on their own merits. Wikiepdia is not a directory WP:NOT--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Other stuff exists is not a reason for keeping this article. Don't worry about the other companies out there, worry about this one. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notable Keep You are not right you can't say here is a list of Alabama Beer Companies and then say a company cant be on that list that is an Alabama Beer Co that makes no since. The merits in this case, is there a beer or beer co. the categories was deem notable in it rarity--Pat Long (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • A category is not a list. A category only determines what kind of article something is. It doesn't need to include every instance of that subject if they are not notable (for example, we could have a category doctors (I don't know if we do) but that doesn't mean every doctor should have an article, just that all articles about doctors should have that category. A list can exist without having an article on every entry of that list. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There were two news article by the Birmingham News on Al.com but they dont keep them more they 6 months the info was there when the Name was first added--Pat Long (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Have you tried www.archive.org? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If a Dr. list (category) is made then it is saying that it is notable the category is a higher point on the pole and makes the name necessary to make the category. You can’t have Alabama Beer and not have a list of them. This is not about Notability it is about is this a real beer/Co. --Pat Long (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat, categories just contain articles about subjects that have independently established their notability. Being in a category by no means makes something notable. I could create an article called "Flibbetygibbet" and put it into 10 categories, but that doesn't mean "Flibbetygibbet" isn't nonsense. Categories only exist to make articles easier to find - they provide no information other than what is already in the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep you are right about Flibbetygibbet but if there was a category called Alabama Flibbetygibbet and your Flibbetygibbet was from Alabama you should be in and not out tell the category is DEL and this is the same BS that went on last year and it was ok then. now the Birmingham News site is down so ECBC should come down hell NO and as I said this is about me doing more work if i didn't the ECBC would be up for years to come this is BS and you know it. --Pat Long (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've just given Pat Long a warning on NPA/Civil and think perhaps s/he's too close to this. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep I seen similar articles; can be expanded. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

...when people look back at my past it is personal I have gone thought this before and now you making me do it one moe time each time i post something it starts over this should be about Vulcan Energy Drink not the Beer company then all the start to say delete you should have done that 10 months ago not now. it was ok then. And one thing I hate about this / email is people hide behind it get a phone number and run this like a company I keep looking at all the other beer company and energy drinks and no one from this site has looked at them way? mybe i should mark them for DEL and they can make therer case. ECBC should stay becouse it was ok last year.* Keep --Pat Long (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't OK last year; it just wasn't tagged last year, maybe because it was so non-notable that nobody saw it. On another note: Playing the mass-AfD game is example 3 of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It never works, unless you're trying to attract lots of other people who are watching other articles. --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Pat Long questioned (uh, sort of) why there is a Category:Beer brewing companies based in Alabama if there aren't many (any?) articles that go there. The reason is that editors sometimes create unpopulated categories for completeness under a scheme that is also creating well-populated categories: for example, an editor probably was creating a few Category:Beer brewing companies in the United States by state entries because of a few states he was working on, and decided it would make sense to create all 50 states even if they are unpopulated. The current existence of a category does not imply that there must be something on Wikipedia which it was created for; the category's existence only means that an editor thought there might be a use for it someday, usually because the category fit into a larger category scheme. After a while, categories which remain underpopulated for a long time might come up under the Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. (Also, categories that are completely empty for several days with no controversies can get speedy deleted.) --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep both the brewery and the beer. Appears to meet WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other opinions

• Delete - no sources to demonstrate notability. Note to originator: if you "know the owners" you should read the guidelines on Conflict of Interest and the Business' FAQ. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Does this have anything to do with the Emerald Coast Beer Fest? I can't find anything about the brewery itself beyond press releases, which are not good sources for primary sources. Also, their own website isn't even online yet so I'm assuming they are very new. Sometimes it takes time gain notability. If we can't find sources I'd like to suggest Deletion without Prejudice--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability and no friend of the owner assertions can counteract that TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep just scrapes by on the terminal article for significant independent coverage. I'll see if I can dig up some more. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to add the Pilsner article into the main article for that source to work without axing one or the other. I still think it needs more sources to meet the standards. I'll keep looking too, but I've been looking for almost two hours today. I don't know if I have the spirit to continue.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

the specific beer articles should probably be merged, together with the company article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As we found out in the comments section that Terminal source is actually from an open blog that anyone can edit so it's not a reliable source. Just FYI--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. And it looked so reliable. Oh well. (actualy, I was too lazy to switch to delete when it first came up it was a blog, and it's starting to snow already, so my keep wouldnt have made much difference. Clearly my argument has evaporated.) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete While it has plenty of links, they are all either press releases (which are not independently verifiable), tax documents for the parent company (which don't confer notability, since they get filled out by everyone), don't mention the subject at all, like the Brewfest link, or are unreliable. Not notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: No reliable or verifiable sources given. Not-notable. seicer | talk | contribs 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable or verifiable sources given. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - to me, this article appears to exist for no other reason than to contain a bunch of external links. Last I checked, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. =Axlq 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The Pat Long has just received a 31hour block. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, with regret, due to lack of RS asserting notability. Too bad. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete lack of independent sources plus COI issues - a winning combination. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (unless sourced). I looked around the Internet and couldn't find any evidence of notability - no significant coverage in reliable sources, no widespread distribution, nothing. Please note that the article's author seems to claim he has found a source[4] so we might want to give that a chance after he/she gets out of their block. Also, if the brewery makes good beer and does well in business, it may well be notable a year from now. Breweries do get a lot of press for the most part so proving notability for a place that is truly notable is usually not that hard. Wikidemo (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for both Emerald Coast Beer Company and Emerald Coast Pilsner. All listed "sources" in Emerald Coast Beer Company are not only unfootnoted, but appear to be all press release conduits passing unchecked statements from ECBC or its holding company, or repeats of blog entries from conflict-of-interest sources. Verifiable facts by reliable third-party sources are non-existant in this article; no evidence whatsoever that this company is notable. As for Emerald Coast Pilsner: the beer isn't even self-brewed; its just another vanity-label made by another brewer. All facts (except the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau license itself) are also lacking in WP:verifiability by reliable third-party sources. It could be that having a TTB license somehow is notable, but despite User:Pat Long's claim, I haven't seen any proof of that; unless someone can show from a reliable third-party source that having a TTB license is a consistent indicator of notibility, Emerald Coast Pilsner is non-notable also; Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related matter

Request - Pat long (the recently block vociferous user, below) added the Emerald Coast Beer Company's AfD tag to 15-20 brewery pages, all pointing to this page. It's not clear whether it's spite or some bizarre type of canvassing, but whatever it is those are not good faith or complete AfD nominations. Sorry to ask, and I would do it myself but I'm on an extremely slow speed Internet connection right now, but would someone kindly undo or roll back all of those so it doesn't disrupt things? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment It appears they've all been reverted. Is there one that was missed? I'm happy to rv it as he's been blocked for being pointy. I'm also moving your comment down below to get it out of the middle of the nom TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks for moving the message down here). "what links here" shows that they've all been fixed. I think people were fixing it as I was trying for an hour to get my message to post...it was like life at 300 baud. Wikidemo (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I feel your pain. I was on a slow dialup connection the other day and it took 7 minutes for gMail to load! He's unblocked, I think, so if any others pop up, let me know and I'll revert. Didn't realise he was linking them all here as well, thanks for that heads up TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:57, 12 March 2008 (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.