Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broo Premium Lager

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 merge to Broo Brewery. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broo Premium Lager[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. nothing in Australian search engine trove. And only 1 hit in major Australian news service news.com.au LibStar (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the herald sun article about the unique ownership deal is sufficient to prove notability, especially given the gnews shutdown problems limiting the ability to find more sources. Lack of coverage in trove isn't surprising as that is more of an archive of much older articles. The-Pope (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but where is the significant third party coverage? One third party source does not establish notability. The fact that gnews archive is not working is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dedicated article, not just a brief mention, in Australia's biggest daily newspaper is significant third party coverage, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the new brewery article makes the most sense. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more sources: some mainstream news, some from niche publications, but I think this qualifies as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since they've now released more than 1 beer, it might be better to rename it to the brand rather than the specific lager. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Broo Brewery. I didn't realise there was a separate article on the brewery, but merging the two articles looks sensible; there is plenty of info about the company and its actions, but a lot of overlap between sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Broo Brewery as per Copapeninsula's comments above.Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Dan arndt satusuro 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Broo Brewery (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (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.