Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumph Brewing Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Daniel Olsen 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Triumph Brewing Company
Hi everyone! Someone didn't finish putting this properly up for AfD, so I'm only here finishing their job. I have no opinion on what happens to this article, I only placed it here for the person who didn't finish it. Thanks, Spawn Man 08:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - doesn't really belong here. The PROD nomination said something about NPOV - I didn't see any of that - nothing that can't be worked on anyway. Bubba hotep 10:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - legitimate notable subject, nothing wrong with the article that can't be improved in the normal run of editing. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - matches WP:COMPANY and WP:V so I don't see a reason for deleting this article. Jayden54 16:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Minor cleanup would help, but not a clear POV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is a vanity page made by the owner/former owner of the company. It violates the WP:COMPANY with flying colours ("1.The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself."). Its products also fail the following requirement: "1. The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The subject does not package its products, so they are only available locally (two locations near each other). Having a page for this company is no different than having a page for a local bakery. Mikebe 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Most bakeries aren't winners of a national bakery-of-the-year competition.[1] The original author of the piece is of no consequence if the material is NPOV and the subject is notable. And it's not one local business, but a chain with two open locations, a third under construction, and a fourth to open next year. I'm not sure what your personal involvement is, but it seems a bit outsized to the issue at hand. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, this place didn't win "national brewery of the year" either. I accept your point about the original author. The fact that it is basically local and does not distribute its products outside of a very limited geographic area would, if it were truly notable, not diminish it. However, since this place is not notable, it just makes it even worse. And my personal involvement: I am trying to improve the beer articles here. This, in my view, detracts from them by telling users: hey, we don't really have any standards here -- we'll write up anybody, whether they have contributed something meaningful to beer or brewing or not. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really think that you are misunderstanding the fundamental issue of notability. "Contributing something meaningful" to a field is only one way to measure notability. "Being noticed" for good or for ill is another way. Google results are plentiful, the local profile seems high. In any case, the standards are enforced by consensus, not by one editor such as yourself. Take it from me -- you win some, you lose some, don't lose sleep over it. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this place didn't win "national brewery of the year" either. I accept your point about the original author. The fact that it is basically local and does not distribute its products outside of a very limited geographic area would, if it were truly notable, not diminish it. However, since this place is not notable, it just makes it even worse. And my personal involvement: I am trying to improve the beer articles here. This, in my view, detracts from them by telling users: hey, we don't really have any standards here -- we'll write up anybody, whether they have contributed something meaningful to beer or brewing or not. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You could well be right (misunderstanding). I am using "1.The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself" from WG:COMPANY. Which guide are you using?
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I did a Google on "Triumph Brewery". I came up with 774 hits. In the first three pages, most were announcements by bands that they are playing there or announcements by local groups that they are having a meeting there. I also found this "unbiased" review of it by a civilian: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/337750. For comparison, I would recommend that you do the same thing for "Gordon Biersch", another brewpub. I came up with 299,000 hits. So, 775 vs. 299,000 -- doesn't that say something? You might also want to look at Gordon_Biersch here. Please notice that in "References" they have four articles and zero reviews. That is what I (and Wikipedia?) mean by "multiple non-trivial published works".
-
-
-
-
-
- I really do appreciate the win some, lose some advice. And, believe it or not, I don't mind losing. What I mind though is losing when my point has merit, and the other side does not.Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or pulling a fast one here. The name isn't "Triumph Brewery", it's "Triumph Brewing Company", which garners 28,500 Google results. You're also disingenous to call Gordon Biersch "another brewpub". It's a brewpub chain with stores in twelve states. As for your assertion that a review fails the "non-trivial published work" criterion, if that were the case it would be in the guideline. Reviews are used to buttress notability all the time -- explicitly so, in the case of artistic works. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really do appreciate the win some, lose some advice. And, believe it or not, I don't mind losing. What I mind though is losing when my point has merit, and the other side does not.Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. The multiple references demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The multiple references that YOU inserted! Mikebe 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- You say that like it is a bad thing to add references. It's not. While there can be some concerns to bias, two edits don't demonstrate that very clearly. FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- reply Another reply to Mikebe. The AfD process is a vetting process to establish evidence to decide whether the article should be kept. Any relevent references that point to the notability of this subject SHOULD BE added to the article in question. The AfD notice clearly states that the article can, and should, continue to be improved during this discussion, and any new additions can and should influence our decisions here. --Jayron32 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I thought this process was to discuss whether the article was worth keeping, not how to improve it. As is probably pretty obvious, I am pretty new to Wikipedia (and pretty shocked at how bad many of the beer articles are!) and the article was clearly in violation of NPOV when I first read it. OK. Now I understand a little more. Now I know about the WG:COMPANY policy. As I said below, adding links to restaurant reviews of a restaurant does not in any way that I understand full-fill the requirement of "multiple non-trivial published works." The fact that there are three reviews in 11 years and that two of the three are less than positive in their opinion also speaks against the notability. Or is just the fact that a restaurant is reviewed enough to meet that requirement? I certainly hope not! Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- An article is brought to AFD because an editor has a question about whether it fits. There is no requirement that the article be frozen forever -- in fact, an article being improved by its time on AFD is a very common consequence. In either case, by removal or improvement, Wikipedia benefits. Don't get overly concerned with process. As for "reviewed enough", yes, that is the requirement. We don't do it on the basis of whether the reviews were positive or negative. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I thought this process was to discuss whether the article was worth keeping, not how to improve it. As is probably pretty obvious, I am pretty new to Wikipedia (and pretty shocked at how bad many of the beer articles are!) and the article was clearly in violation of NPOV when I first read it. OK. Now I understand a little more. Now I know about the WG:COMPANY policy. As I said below, adding links to restaurant reviews of a restaurant does not in any way that I understand full-fill the requirement of "multiple non-trivial published works." The fact that there are three reviews in 11 years and that two of the three are less than positive in their opinion also speaks against the notability. Or is just the fact that a restaurant is reviewed enough to meet that requirement? I certainly hope not! Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete Exactly what has this brewpub done of any significance that warrants an entry in an ecyclopedia? If this merits a page, then so does every other brewery in the world. Is that the purpose of an encylclopedia, to be a list of all breweries? Would an old fashioned paper work like the Encyclopedia Brittanica have devoted space to a small brewery like this? No, it wouldn't. Neither should wikipedia, if it wants to be taken seriously.Patto1ro 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- This year there were 69 classes at the GABF, with three medals awarded in each class. That's more than 200 medals for this year alone. Does every brewery that has ever won one of these medals deserve an encyclopedia page? Over 10 years how many breweries will that be? Exactly who outside of an incredibly limted area has ever heard of/been able to try the beers of this brewpub? Oh, they have 3 pubs and are expanding to four. Well that makes them a real force in the brewing world. Having an encyclopedia entry for these people is a complete joke and makes wikipedia look ridiculous. I suggest those who support retaining this vanity page take a look at:
-
-
-
- How many breweries get an entry in the Encyclopdia Brittanica
- How many wineries get their own page in the wikipedia.
-
-
Patto1ro 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- There really isn't any need for sarcasm. I had never heard of this brewpub before this AFD, but a cursory Google search told me that this one is notable. Largest in the state, largest production in the state, notable architecture, expanding brand. I'm not making this a general rule that all brewpubs are automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If you don't mind, I will answer you here. The award they "won" are from the Great American Beer Festival. If you look at their site (GABF), you will see that Anheuser-Busch, Coors, Miller, etc. win silver and gold medals almost every year -- far more, in fact, than Triumph brewpub. In only 2005, for example, Anheuser-Busch "won" three golds, one silver and one bronze. If you know beer, you know that these companies produce what is essentially industrial swill. OK, maybe others may think it is just "bad", but the point is how can they win so many medals? I have heard from multiple American beer lovers that it is because they "sponsor" the festival and/or the organisation and the medals are awarded to them as a quid pro quo. After "buying" these medals they proudly proclaim on their site that they have won "prestigous" awards: http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press_room/2005/A-B_Honored_GABF100305.html. So, what exactly is the significance of a medal from the GABF if you can "buy" it? Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- You may wish to review your own need to editorialize about the GABF. According to their own site the awards are determined by a panel of judges.[2] If you have information to the contrary, well, it should be citeable. Your own low opinion of the award isn't sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, assuming, for the sake of discussion, that they are awarding prizes based on sponsorship, you don't really expect them to announce this anywhere, do you? And, it's not just them -- the awards mean income to quite a few companies and it just doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest to publish openly what I've written. But, you only have to look at the facts: an organisation founded to benefit craft brewers is now awarding more medals to Anheuser-Busch than to any of the craft brewers! Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:_rjgylVbCs0J:www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php%3FPage%3D532%26Category%3D15+gabf+anheuser-busch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30 (sorry, but I had to use a Google cache of the site because the actual site is down at the moment). Why would they do that? Are the Anheuser-Busch beers really better than all American craft beers? Well, draw your own conclusion. Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, resorting to conspiracy theories doesn't bolster your credibility. These are obviously industry awards, but they are verifiable and reported in reliable sources. If there is similarly V/RS compliant criticism of the awards, I suggest you add it to the GABF article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, assuming, for the sake of discussion, that they are awarding prizes based on sponsorship, you don't really expect them to announce this anywhere, do you? And, it's not just them -- the awards mean income to quite a few companies and it just doesn't seem to be in anyone's interest to publish openly what I've written. But, you only have to look at the facts: an organisation founded to benefit craft brewers is now awarding more medals to Anheuser-Busch than to any of the craft brewers! Source: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:_rjgylVbCs0J:www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php%3FPage%3D532%26Category%3D15+gabf+anheuser-busch&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=30 (sorry, but I had to use a Google cache of the site because the actual site is down at the moment). Why would they do that? Are the Anheuser-Busch beers really better than all American craft beers? Well, draw your own conclusion. Mikebe 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Weak Keep Perhaps all those awards and stuff make it noteable? =/ However, the article doesn't really say more about why it is noteable, but it seems like it is.--CF90 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Don't see much POV, but it could use more mention of notability. bibliomaniac15 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep my LEXIS search turned up 102 references, and TruthbringerToronto has already integrated several references. These sources are sufficient coverage to pass WP:COMPANY and WP:V.-- danntm T C 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep reviews in the New York Times, Philadelipia Magazine more than establish notability. People outside of wikipedia have written about this brewery. Ergo we can cite that information to write a good article. --Jayron32 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- What I think you are all overlooking here is that this is a brewpub/restaurant. It is in the nature of restaurants that they will be reviewed by local media -- virtually without exception. So, showing that a particular restaurant has been reviewed is pretty meaningless -- getting bad reviews, OTOH, would be meaningful, but in a different way. What would show notability is that an article has been written about the restaurant -- that they have taken a new and/or different approach or that that they have done something that is perhaps in another way meaningful. There is still not a single article that provides this brewpub with "notability" -- a requirement at Wikipedia. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- As stated above, there is no such requirement. Reviews are independent, third-party sources and sufficient to establish notability. You want notability to mean something like "national prominence", but it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, no. If every restaurant gets reviewed, as I noted, what makes one restaurant notable over another, especially if it did not receive very good reviews?Mikebe 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- As stated above, there is no such requirement. Reviews are independent, third-party sources and sufficient to establish notability. You want notability to mean something like "national prominence", but it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I think you are all overlooking here is that this is a brewpub/restaurant. It is in the nature of restaurants that they will be reviewed by local media -- virtually without exception. So, showing that a particular restaurant has been reviewed is pretty meaningless -- getting bad reviews, OTOH, would be meaningful, but in a different way. What would show notability is that an article has been written about the restaurant -- that they have taken a new and/or different approach or that that they have done something that is perhaps in another way meaningful. There is still not a single article that provides this brewpub with "notability" -- a requirement at Wikipedia. Mikebe 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This quote, if verifiable (there's no supporting citation), would clearly get it notability in my book: "In 1993 Governor James Florio signed into law a bill legalizing brewpubs in the State of New Jersey, and the original operating name 'Victory Brewing Company' was chosen to commemorate the successful legalization campaign organized and funded by Triumph's founders" (emphasis added). Combine that with coverage in Philadelphia Magazine, and it passes muster at WP:COMPANY. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I have read that citation twice and you must have linked the wrong article. This one is about the marriage of the brewer. Mikebe 07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- My mistake. Apparently, I was confusing a citable page with an uncitable page. I don't have NEXIS but this seems like it should have been in news articles, so I'll leave it as needing a citation. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good idea to leave the wrong article. Kind of fills up the page and make it look like it really is notable.Mikebe 16:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm no longer interested in replying to your passive-aggressive comments, Mikebe. Please assume good faith and refrain from this sort of behavior in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep per the many mentions above, it does appear to pass WP:CORP. --Oakshade 06:07, 28 November 2006 (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.
