Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerage

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. No one but the nominator favored deletion, and his invocation of WP:DICTDEF was sucessfully rebutted. Even if the word were now totally obsolete, Wikipedia covers the politics of the past. DES ^(talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beerage

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

Outdated dictionary definition, as shown here. It is not a concept as such, and the article is attempting to explain the meaning and usage of the term; as such it fails WP:Dictionary. We are led to understand the term now refers to the British brewing industry in general, though in the few times I've come upon it in modern use, it was an alternative tongue-in-cheek term in the 1970s for the "Big Six" breweries that CAMRA were set up to campaign against. It is a word rarely used these days, though may meet the criteria for Wiktionary. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For starters, in answer to the proposal for deletion, the term is not outdated according to the very source presented above. Said source mentions only when it was first coined, not that it is dated.

Second, not sure what is meant by "not a concept as such", but I suspect that an embarrassingly large majority of articles at Wikipedia would fail a strict definition of the term "concept".

Third, the article was proposed for deletion earlier today and I contested it, adding inline citations from perfectly notable - and contemporary (see point 1 above) - sources. As per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." I did so, and the proposing editor brings it up here for discussion. Fine, let's discuss it. Wikipedia is about reaching consensus. Though rather than wasting time discussing a perfectly acceptable article, correctly formatted, etc., I'd rather devote my valuable time to reverting vandal edits and proposing speedy deletion for articles that clearly damage Wikipedia's credibility. --Technopat (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki~~ This article is, and has been since it was made in 2007, about the definition and origin of a word, and some examples of its use. It certainly isn't an article about the British brewing industry itself. Move it over to Wiktionary. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The article has since been expanded to show the very real link between the British brewing industry and British politics - very much a "concept" by anyone's standards.--Technopat (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tech's improvements are a step in the right direction. I think that the article was initially built around the (debatably) amusing story about Lady Astor. I'm not sure if anybody would mind if the quote from "the Speaker interjecting severely" were to mysteriously be lost in the course of editing. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Thanks for thumbs-up. I've just found and added the inline citation to the quote - and expanded it to show the context in which it was made. Does that make a difference as to whether it stays as a pertinent quote rather than a merely amusing anecdote? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I respect Technopat's good faith attempt to improve the article, however what is happening now is an attempt by Technopat to construct a history and development of the word from usage in various sources. This is WP:Original research. We don't have reliable sources talking about the word, other than as a dictionary definition. Technopat has found instances of the word being used, and has in some cases inferred a meaning from the use of the word in context. Apart from dictionary definitions there is no "Significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Useful for people to look up the term in Wiktionary if they come upon it in a newspaper, but sketching it out into an article is falling foul of several of our policies and guidelines. 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork (talk • contribs)
- Reply - please give an instance of "an attempt by Technopat to construct a history and development of the word from usage in various sources. This is WP:Original research." and I will - of course - delete it. --Technopat (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It covers a significant topic in the history of the UK beer industry and politics. The article was always intended to be about the subset of the "peerage" that were connected with the brewing industry and who exerted a strong political influence, but as it was written about 800 articles ago when starting out on a wiki adventure it probably ended up looking too much like a dictionary definition. Also the Nancy reference was the only one I could find at the time. The nominator's and anonymous commenter's comments do seem a bit odd. It is remarkable to allege "own research" for the normal process of building up an article from verifiable sources - if that's the case then we should all pack up. It is also strange to assert that an encyclopedia should exclude terminology on the grounds that it is "outdated" (even when it isn't) when the whole point is surely to provide an antidote to ignorance. Furthermore, it appears that the nominator was confused by the different uses of the term but now the article has been developed to help resolve this confusion we have "foul" being cried. I am a bit disappointed because I have great appreciation for the work SilkTork has been doing on the topic of beer and it is worrying if historical/political/social considerations are being dismissed so lightly. Motmit (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2010 (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.