Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Florida breweries

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida breweries[edit]

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

List of two items, both of them redlinks. Author indicates he is planning on writing a list of every brewery in every state in the country. I requested that he please not do that till he's written articles about the breweries first so that we can see that they meet WP:CORP and have reliable sources. Lists of redlinks are deprecated per WP:LISTS: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles first, lists later. I hope the editor is not discouraged by this, but that's the way it's supposed to work here. BTW, the threshold in WP:CORP is such that many breweries (a lot of them are small companies) may not pass: notability needs to be established per WP's standards; a link to the company website is not enough, of course. The editor is encouraged to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies; wait until enough prove notable for articles. Don't put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - someone should notify WP:Beer of this discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree about lists of redlinks, lists of no links, I believe, are a way of encyclopediatically including things that would not be notable enough for stand-alone articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and this sort of list is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should happily feature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I cannot disagree more. How about List of bands that never released an album? That would be the kind of thing Wikipedia should feature, since it would be as unlikely to provide reliable sources as would this list being discussed. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not automatically unreliable sources. If the existiance of a brewery can be verified, even if only via a primary source, there's no reason why it shouldn't be included in a list of breweries. And your hypothetical "Lobtnraa"? That is also the kind of thing that there's no reason it shouldn't be here if it can be verified. People are losing sight of the unique qualities of Wikipedia, and are using WP:N (among others) to try and bludgeon it into being "the online Encyclopedia Britannica that anyone can edit as long as it's on an approved subject". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not notability. Want to start List of garage bands? All you need is their myspace pages to verify that they exist. You might want to peruse WP:CORP as well. Corvus cornix_talk 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never argued that existence = notability. However, I do know that a list can cover subjects that are not notable enough for their own articles, and I also know that "Notability" has become a club instead of a tool, which saddens me greatly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll note that I said verified using reliable sources. Myspace isn't a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but I'll take the word of the AfD nominator over the word of anyone who thinks "encyclopediatically" is a word in any dictionarifiable sense. Yakushima (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "encyclopediatic" used multiple times, I'm sorry if posting when in need of caffination with resultant bad spelling makes my comments somehow grounds to delete an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search of both companies listed means they fail WP:CORP Ibluffsocall (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be a good reason for them not to have their own articles. But why not as part of a list? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. Corvus cornix_talk 05:37, 2 February 2011 (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.