Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewery Collectibles Club of America

Add links
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery Collectibles Club of America

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Brewery Collectibles Club of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a private website for the organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What exactly is the issue or point you're trying to make? Your message means nothing to me, and it is unclear why you think this article is an appropriate candidate for deletion. Please advise. Porterhse (User talk:Porterhse)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also talking about sections 5, 6, and 7--in fact, almost all the article. We should instead have an article on beer-related collectables as a hobby. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (e.g. those mentioned by Spiderone). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thank you Spiderone, Toughpigs and BennyOnTheLoose for your input. I concur wholeheartedly and we can certainly have the discussion about amending or excising certain sections of the article. We're all for improving it; deletion is a nuclear option that would be unconscionable. I look forward to input about when it will be appropriate to remove this ghastly deletion tag. I am leaving it for now out of respect for Wikipedia practices. Porterhse (talk)
Hi Porterhse: Articles for Deletion discussions usually take a week or so, and the ghastly deletion tag needs to stay on the article for the duration. :) We want people to look at the article and the sources, and post their views here, so we give folks about a week to do that. If everybody posts Keep, then this will be over quickly, and so far it looks pretty good. If some people come and advocate for Delete, then the discussion might get "relisted", which means another week for more discussion. It's tough to wait, especially for a page that you care about, but the best thing to do is leave it alone for now — don't take off the tag, don't post in this discussion, just let folks take a look and post their thoughts. It's going well so far, you just need to be patient. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toughpigs...100% agree, in fact I just shared these sentiments with another user. Thank you so very much for your response and guidance, I really appreciate it. Porterhse (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP which has been tightened up in recent times as to the requirements for notability. One aspect is references. I see above that some Keep !voters have trotted out the good ol' "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" line which falls well short of today's criteria. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. I request that Keep !voters here point to the best WP:THREE references (in their opinion) is they disagree. I'm happy to change my !vote if references can be found. In the meantime, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. "Beer Can Collectors Hold Barter-Fest" (New York Times, Sept 1972), "The Brewery Collectibles Club of America Has to Do with Beer Than You Might Think" (St. Louis Magazine, July 2012), "Treasure hunting: Hundreds of beer can hobbyists coming to Albuquerque for CANvention" (Albuquerque Journal, Aug 2019). What's the problem with those three? — Toughpigs (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy. I've commented on the first two references above - basically they fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The Albuquerque Journal fails for the same reason - they don't provide any in-depth details on *the organization*, it's essentially a big interview with Scoglietti (fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 19:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has brought up the Wall Street Journal source yet [[5]]. This source both goes in-depth on the organization, and is of course independent content. Please review, HighKing. Porterhse (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Porterhse, an article must have in-depth information *and* have original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking that are *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject. The WSJ reference has almost no in-depth information on the company. The only information on this organization that isn't directly attributed is the statistics on the shrinking membership but coming as it does after a quotation from the club president, even that is likely attributable to information provided by the organization (I mean, where else would statistics on the club be available?). So this source fails the criteria for establishing notability also. HighKing++ 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "keep" but the close has been challenged on my talk page, so I am reopening this for a further week's discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: HighKing's evaluation of the New York Times article is incorrect. HighKing says that the article "only mentions the company in passing and is mostly discussing the convention." The convention is one of the main activities of the organization, so discussion about the convention is a discussion of the organization. The article discusses the organization's logo, the newsletter, their listing compiling all beer cans, the history of the organization's founding and events, the number of members including breakdown by state and country, the organization's mailing address, the organization's system for grading its members, and five paragraphs at the end about one of the co-founders. This is not an article about the convention that mentions the organization; it is an article about the organization that uses the convention as its "hook". Similarly, the St. Louis Magazine article, called "The Brewery Collectibles Club of America Has Less to do With Beer Than You Might Think", is a 42-paragraph article specifically about the organization, which interviews seven different people; it is clearly based on live interviews, and not a press release. All of the people interviewed are members of the organization, but how else would a journalist learn about the organization, using telepathy? Describing this article as "churnalism" is absurd. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Spiderone 15:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say so discussion about the convention is a discussion of the organization. That's a ridiculous proposition and not supported by any of our policies and guidelines. If that were the case, then discussion of a product would similarly count as discussion on the company who made the product and it doesn't. NCORP treats a product's notability separately from the company and vice versa. Also, thank you for pointing out that the St. Louis Magazine article is made up of interviews with 7 different people. What you fail to point out is that all relevant information on the company is provided in those people who are all "connected sources" and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reasons you've provided have anything to do with NCORP guidelines. You'll need to show why particular references meet the requirements of NCORP. HighKing++ 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Our WP:N policy explicitly states in WP:SNG: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". FYI, the SNG for companies and organizations is WP:NCORP. Both NCORP and GNG are guidelines, one is not "greater" than the other. HighKing++ 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that there are "no firm rules". While it does have policies and guidelines, these change and there are times when certain ones, especially as it relates to content, should be ignored altogether. It is a good faith but rigid adherence to policy and guideline, instead of appealing to the spirit of the totality of the experiment that will be the end of Wikipedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion What about renaming and reworking the article to be about the convention? There appears to be sufficient references to establish notability and it overcomes the lack of references on the company. HighKing++ 19:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit .. I had started this response before Toughpigs deleted his questions/points but I believe it was a question worth responding to nonetheless). Hi Toughpigs, you say the NYT article "discusses the organization at great length" and meets ORGIND. I'm puzzled at how you can see it otherwise as for me, it is classic churnalism. The easiest way to resolve this issue is for you point to any part of that article that meets ORGIND's requirements for the content to include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject because nothing in this article meets that requirement. For me, the article starts off setting the scene of the convention peppered with some background info on the type of people and the organization itself, then becomes a series of quotes and interviews with members culminating in the final paragraphs dedicated to the outgoing president and co-founder. It is clear and obvious to me that the journalist got 100% of his information either from the organization itself, from its members during the convention, or from the "officers" of the organization. If you disagree, fine, lets look at the article. Can you point to where in the article there is "opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" evident from the journalist which is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, you are WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation; I recommend that you take a step back, and give other people some space to talk. The person who has the last word is not automatically rewarded with the outcome of their choice. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a question and made a number of points which you then deleted (after I'd started to answer). The AfD process is supposed to be cooperative in order to reach a consensus. Your (deleted) question raised your viewpoint regarding the NYT article which deserved a response. My response is not intended to be adversarial but an invitation to engage in constructive dialogue and to examine the NYT article in detail if you believe it meets the criteria for establishing notability. Invoking the "you are bludgeoning the process" complaint (which I've noticed is starting to pop up on a regular basis on AfDs when peoples !votes are challenged) is, in reality, an attempt to shut down or avoid a discussion. HighKing++ 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe an article on "beer can collecting" as a hobby would meet the guidelines for notability. I note too that DGG has expressed a similar opinion above and I also believe that most of the references in this article are useful for a "beer can collecting" article. HighKing++ 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a COI but that isn't expressly forbidden. Unless we are truly neutral about everything in life we all could be considered having a COI when editing and creating articles. The issue is whether the 503c either directly passes GNG, unequivocally, or passes the spirit of GNG thereby improving Wikipedia by being included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska, you are technically correct that COI editing is not "expressly forbidden", policy-wise. However, COI editing and undisclosed paid editors create hours and hours of clean up work for uninvolved editors. We are all volunteers here, and COI cleanup is a waste of time for editors whose time might be more fruitfully spent by creating content. I like beer as much as anyone, but why should this article mention the "Board" five times, esp. since it was created by a board member? I have deleted their annual fee for membership dues from the article, but the article still remains unabashedly promotional. Netherzone (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brewery_Collectibles_Club_of_America&oldid=987629237"