Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Beer Club

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. Sandstein 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Beer Club[edit]

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

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

Delete There are many problems with this article. It is entirely promotional, especially the "Reviews" section which serves no other purpose other than to promote the club. I have read every reference and none meets the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I've tried working with the article creator and despite discussions on my Talk page, we're butting heads and not making progress. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me first of all point out that article reviewers such as HighKing are required to be civil in their dealings with editors, and the phrase "butting heads" used by HighKing is over-the-top and not, in my opinion, civil. The phrase seems to imply intransigence and an unwillingness on my part to improve the article, which is certainly not demonstrated by the history of the article’s revisions, nor by the comments that I have left on his and the article own Talk pages. When HighKing mentions that the article is, in his opinion, not notable, he fails to mention that another reviewer, Legacypac, determined that the article was notable while it was still in draftspace, as proven by the latter’s comments on HighKing’s own Talk page. This would at least imply that its notability is subject to interpretation. I should also point out in fairness that HighKing had promised me that he would search for links that might establish the notability of the article’s subject, but as far as I know, he has not yet done this, and his nominating the article for deletion seems to make it unlikely he'll fulfill that promise.

HighKing first tagged, and then attempted to delete, the article’s Reviews section, which is the strongest proof of the Rare Beer Club’s notability. He did this on the grounds that this section is especially "promotional" in an article that he believes, without evidence, is “entirely promotional,” seeming to imply that all the sources I have listed, including the Los Angeles Times, Fortune and Popular Mechanics, are somehow in the pay of the Rare Beer Club. Or perhaps he merely misinterprets that part of the WP:NOTE article that deals with this matter. That section prohibits either self-promotion or advertising, marketing and public relations. The Reviews section, however, is neither self-promotion nor advertising, since it presents links to independent third-party sources containing quotes commenting on the article's subject. HighKing took particular exception to the sentence, "The Rare Beer Club has received positive reviews from many print and online media sources." But this sentence is a objective statement of fact. If I had located negative reviews of the club, I would have linked to them as well, and written, equally accurately, "The Rare Beer Club has received mixed reviews…"

Finally, it should be noted that the article Tesla Model 3, to name one of many possible examples, contains multiple links to reviews of that product, but that that page was never, as far as I know, tagged as "promotional." Three years ago, I successful nominated the article Pather Panchali, about the classic Indian film of that name, as a Today’s Featured Article, and it appeared as a TFA on August 16, 2015 (its 50th anniversary). No doubt, HighKing would consider the Release and reception section of that article, in which there are links to sources containing original reviews of the film, to be a shameless promotion of Satyajit Ray, the film’s director.

I am perfectly willing to revise the article to improve it, if HighKing or another reviewer finally offers constructive suggestions, but I need to point out that I may be limited in my ability to do so within the seven-day period, as I will soon be undergoing a major medical procedure and will need time to recover. Depending on my condition, I may need to ask that HighKing withdraw the article from AfD temporarily, until I’m strong enough to make the necessary changes. I will have to review my health situation by November 10th to make that decision. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've tried to point out to the article creator that the "Reviews" section (now renamed "Reception") is entirely promotional. Any attempts to tag the sections was met with an instant removal. The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine. This was discussed at my Talk page. The following explanation was provided there in relation to the available references and the applicable policies/guidelines.

I tagged the article for potential notability issues to give the topic experts time to find good references but the author appears to have taken exception and came to my Talk page after removing the tag. Since then, I've politely asked that Dylanexpert highlight the two references he believes meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, Dylanexpert lists "reliable mainstream sources" of The Los Angeles Times, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. As I'm sure you know, "reliable mainstream sources" is not the criteria we should be looking at - let's just accept those publications indeed meet the relevant criteria for reliable sources - but the content of those articles is important. I don't have access to the WSJ at this location just now so I cannot comment on that reference. The LA Times reference relies entirely on information provided by Kris Calef - who owns the Rare Beer Club. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club but for me, I do not regard it as in-depth coverage - closer to a mention-in-passing - and discusses the subscription service and not the organization and likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At a push, it is a weak reference. Other references such as the localbeerblog, mantelligence, berghoffbeer.com, ifmycoastercouldtalk.bangordailynews.com and blog.ggbailey.com, fail WP:RS since they are blogs, the beermonthclub is a PRIMARY source, the beerpulse reference is an Ad therefore PRIMARY, the various obituaries for Jackson don't mention the topic company, references like the Chicago Tribune, artofmanliness.com, brit.co and goop.com include a Rare Beer Club subscription in their lists of gift suggestions for whenever (Christmas, Fathers Day, Holidays) but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Popular Mechanics reference is a mention in passing that talks about how great the service is but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the americancraftberr.com reference is a mention-in-passing plugging the service and fails CORPDEPTH, the hop-cast is basically a vlog and mentions getting a bottle with their subscription and fails CORPDEPTH.

The "Reviews"/"Reception" section is nothing but a cherry-picked section of positive comments, primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many refs from notable sources substantiate the correct inclusion of this page. This is not written in an Advertorial manner, it just reflects the sources. I actively delete spam all the time, so this is not an inexperienced vote. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list any two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Please also see my comments above in relation to the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I changed the title of the section from "Reviews" to "Reception" and eliminated the sentence about holiday and Father's Day gift-buying guides as possibly too promotional-sounding. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, thank you. But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s fair at all that HighKing is engaging in this controversy while I’m recovering from surgery, as mentioned above, but I’ll do my best to counter his arguments.

HighKing throughout is claiming that I am doing exactly what he is actually doing: namely, he is claiming that I’m ignoring him, while it is really he who is ignoring me. HighKing has never denied that he indicated he’d help me with the article, nor can he deny that he hasn’t helped me as promised. HighKing simply dismisses his own previous offers of help.

HighKing’s use of the phrase "cherry picked" implies that I dishonestly selected positive comments about the club and ignored any negative ones. As I’ve said already (and which HighKing typically didn’t listen to), I found no negative reviews for this club. The reviews are not "cherry-picked," because they are typical of the reception to this club. If I found, or if HighKing found, negative reviews of the club, I would gladly cite them as well. The burden of proof is on HighKing to find negative reviews to support his allegation. Meanwhile, I am not going to delete the Reception section as that very section constitutes proof of the club’s notability.

HighKing’s assertion that the reviews are "primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself" doesn’t make any sense… as I’ve already explained. This company is not Microsoft or Amazon; it’s a small organization. The beer club is the company. To expect online commentators to talk about something else besides the beer, such as, for example, the company’s corporate structure, is incredibly naïve. There are articles, like that of Mantelligence (citing The Wall Street Journal), that refer to the history of the company by mentioning Michael Jackson as the founder, but HighKing ignores this.

HighKing states above: "The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine." If this were true, if I had thought the article “perfectly fine,” I would not have made any subsequent changes to it. The article’s “view history” and its own Talk Page, demonstrate that I have made substantial changes since that conversation on HighKing’s Talk Page, one of which HighKing himself acknowledges above. I have proven myself ready and willing to cooperate when a suggestion makes sense to me. But I am not willing to obey everything HighKing says, or accept him as the ultimate authority on Wikipedia.

HighKing says: "But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability." Okay. Let’s talk about the Fortune article. HighKing says: "The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club." This is not true, as I’ve already pointed out. It’s quite clear from the context which parts of the Fortune article refer to the Rare Beer Club, and that the writer does so at length. Furthermore, the Fortune writer goes out of his way to indicate that the club, like similar clubs, is expensive and thus not for everyone, so the writer’s mostly positive review of the club is tempered by this fact. This makes it clear that the Fortune article is, as per WP:NCORP, significant, independent, reliable and secondary. As to the Popular Mechanics article, it mentions The Rare Beer Club not in passing but as the main subject. It has no connection to the club, so it’s not a primary source. It is independent, because the article mentions potentially negative aspects of the club as well as positive ones: "The shipping costs are a pain." It is reliable because it’s not self-published, but is a reputable publication going back to 1902. So the Popular Mechanics article is significant, independent, reliable and secondary, and thus proves notability.

Because of health issues, I don’t know if I can respond anymore, but I think I’ve laid out my case for keeping the article. Dylanexpert (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry to hear you've health issues, hope you get well.

There are a total of 8 sentences in that article that clearly talks about RBC. One sentence tells us that the RBC typically ships two 750ml bottles and costs $50 after shipping and handling. Also, the Fortune article does not contain the sentence "The shipping costs are a pain" or anything close to it.
Of the remaining 7 sentences dealing with the RBC, the 4th is a quotation from Calef, the owner.
Of the remaining 6 sentences, the first sentence reminds us that the RBC ships beer and tell you that likely it will be something you've never had before. The second sentence says that typically, one bottle is from overseas and the other isn't, and reminds the reader that the owner, Calef, works with some US brewers to make batches that are exclusive to the club. Calef's quotation is directly supporting this "fact". With an eye on how much of the entire paragraph is clearly attributable to sources unaffiliated with the subject, I note that this "fact" doesn't appear in any other literature about the RBC that I have been able to locate - therefore I believe this "fact" was provided to the author by Calef for the purposes of this article. For this reason, I believe the article fails WP:ORGIND. Your mileage may vary.
NCORP also requires that the article is significant. As per WP:CORPDEPTH Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
For me, 8 sentences in an article where the topic company isn't even the subject matter of the article is not significant. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To HighKing: First, you mention above that the phrase "the shipping costs are a pain" doesn't appear in the Fortune article. Of course, it doesn't, because even a cursory reading of my comments above reveals that I was referring to the Popular Mechanics article, in which the phrase does appear, NOT to the Fortune article. Please read my text carefully before you attempt to refute it. Second, this discussion has been relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." That means that users other than you, me and LegacyPac should weigh in on the discussion. So let's both chill for awhile. Okay? Dylanexpert (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge On the surface the article appears widely referenced and extensively written, but the sources mostly seem to be promotional articles written on behalf the company themselves. No other beer clubs, many of which are more noteworthy (i.e. Ratebeer, Beermerchants) have pages, and I'm doubtful the club passes notability tests on Organisations/Companies, which stipulates there must be: Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If the article takes into account other beer subscription clubs, parts of it could maybe be saved by merging with the page on Beer Culture. AbrahamCat (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while there may be some arguments for notability, this is a clearly self promotional article and it would best be merged with another article as suggested above. Skirts89 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (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.