Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition Meadery

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. There seems to be a general consensus that there is sufficient notability for inclusion. That said, the article has been edited almost exclusively by people associated with the business, and consequently has severe promotional overtones in its content and prose. While not by any means required, it would be very helpful and much appreciated for the uninvolved editors who voted "keep" to try editing the article for tone and NPOV. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition Meadery[edit]

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

This is close to a WP:G11 as a promotional article, and is questionable as to notability. Cannot be made non-promotional without being blanked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also apply A7 as there's clear signs of no actual significance and WP:NOT applies, therefore delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the three existing references do nothing to establish notability, as the first is not independent and the other two contain no discussion. But better references exist, e.g. this. Maproom (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Also see previous comment) I've added references 2, 3, 4, & 7 to show notability and significance. 'See also' section now has two wikipedia articles linked to this one. I believe these changes should remove this article from being a WP:G11 promotional article, and is no longer questionable as to notability. I am requesting the removal of this delete inquiry or at least information as to how this article can be modified to be satisfactory. Justindevine (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the creators of this article have appropriately declared on the article's talk page that they are employees of the company, and that their purpose is to promote awareness of mead, meaderies, and this meadery in particular. However, they have provided independent reputable sources (The Daily Courier, Paste, Draft and RateBeer) demonstrating notability as an award-winning concern. The article is not worded in a promotional fashion. It does talk a lot about the meadery's awards, but this talk is well-sourced, and is also the basis for notability. Thus, I don't think the article is solely promotional, and I think the subject is sufficiently notable to deserve a place here. ubiquity (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonably well cited article on a small business which has garnered some awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I love craft beer, I kinda like mead, I am a heavy user of RateBeer, but c'mon, guys, these and a write-up in the local paper are not sufficient to establish the notability of a micro-meadery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per K.e.coffman above. Meets WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 26 December 2016 (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.