Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing (2nd nomination)

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. Per WP:SNOW, especially given the result of the last AfD just three months ago. Consensus is clear that the subject is notable. Content disputes should be dealt with on the article's talk page. AFD is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Brothers Brewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Is Wikipedia is some kind of restaurant directory. This entry should be remove due to the fact its not notable, and contributes to the sum of all human knowledge. This article would fit very well on an advertising flier, stuck to my car window in Warrenville parking lot at the Satisfied Frog pub and grill. This article should be promptly removed, per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION. unless Two Bothers is paying some at Wikipedia to have this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbreww (talk • contribs)

• Geez, what is this, broken AFD day? It seems like I'm the only person who can fix these freaking things. Clearly nobody else cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are a bit confusing and cryptic. Sorry for the trouble - thanks Greenbreww (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the articles AfD. The false 3rd nomination has be deleted. (CSD G7) -- allen四names 03:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youGreenbreww (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seem to be enough references to establish notability. Not to imply they're nationally famous, but there seems to be enough for inclusion. Problems with the article can be adressed there rather than at a AfD (see WP:BEFORE). I'm also pretty sure that getting fliers stuck in your window isn't a valid arguement for deletion. Just saying' Bfigura ^(talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A little two bit micro brew is not notable. See WP:DEL#REASON as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The reasons for deletion of this article, as it is blatant advertising for this small and rather non-notable gin mill in Warrenville Illinois.Greenbreww (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd ask the nominator to tone it down a bit. There's no need to disparage the subject here. Also, the nominator's history suggests a SPA --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but the fact this article is blatant advertising and is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia still stands.Greenbreww (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The editor who nominated the article for deletion the first time around seems to have abandoned the account immediately afterwards. And now we have this new single purpose account. Kind of odd. — goethean ॐ 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TONE down the Ad Homumin attacks - the issue is not about SPA, it's beer and the notability of this little bar in Warrenvile, I know you like being abusive, aggressive, and nasty to those that don't 110% agree with your off wall opinions, but this only about bad beer, not about those you don't like.Greenbreww (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your angle, Green, see my comment about you below?--Milowent (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, thanks - The comment was directed to Mr Goethean - his comment about SPA was uncalled for.Greenbreww (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your repeated failure to reply to my simple question is good evidence to suggest that you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. Its not about whether you are an "SPA" but what your angle is.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Google alone shows coverage in the Chicago Reader and in a journalist's book about "American beer culture" (plus "BeerAdvocate.com", for what that's worth), all of which are third-party sources, although I wouldn't go out on a limb for their reliability or depth of coverage. If the article appears to be advertising the topic, that can be solved by editing rather than deletion. (Editing to add: this is in addition to the Chicago Tribune coverage already noted in the previous AfD, for those who haven't read it.) --Paularblaster 08:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Numerous third party sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: So there was a recent prior AfD that ended in July 2009 as a keep, and I see no argument that prior consensus has changed, right? As suggested above, Nominator Greenbreww was around during that AfD and was active on talk page, and his nick sounds like he's interested in the subject matter, so am interested to know what he/she thinks is different now.--Milowent (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Google books [1]. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per wikipolicy regarding using Wikipeidia for Advertising a business, especially one so small. Note, the Trib and other will give complementary writeups in their news paper for paid advertising, especially when the Trib is bankrupt right now. So, I call in to question the true notability of this bar. But, this article, is in conflict with published Wikipeida policy of WP:DEL#REASON as well as WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTDIRECTORYBut I guess all of these polices are worthless? Greenbreww 22:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the nominator, and a presumed delete !vote, Greenbreww. Why don't you respond to my repeated questions about what your angle is in all this, and why you think the prior consensus from less than 30 days ago, resulting in a keep, has changed? I am always open to differing viewpoints, but simply reeling off policy names is rarely convincing.--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Greenbreww has now !voted delete twice - I just noted this while persuing the comments again.--Milowent (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reeling off Policy, I guess it's ok to use wikipeida as a form of free advertisement, Now I throw the question of "What is me interest in this..." I throw this back at you, MR Milowent? Why is this little, bar so important to you Mr Milowent the the others??? Just for the record, I live with in 1.6 miles Away from this place and have tasted the work of the Two brothers, unlike most here, less maybe MR Goththememan( who I know lives in dupage). I found the work to be unremarkable.

Now, the point, first why bother with policy, when it can be apply or not to apply at will and convenience of those with the power bully their point of view? Second, As I mention, Two brother advertise in the Trib, Daily Herald, as it is customary, for those that advertise heavily, to give favorable reviews in return to heavy advertisers to the newspaper. In other words, I don't recognized the validity of the reviews listed about TB. Now finely, the rule of law (policy) vers (consensus) - Now, if we have rule of law, then even tho, as we look out side and most would say the Earth is "flat" The truth is its round, but if you get a "consensus", in Wikipedia which - the earth is "flat" and enough bully in to say so, then it's flat - Or in other words, might makes right when it's wrong. That is the point, yes?

Consider this...

Trade publications and awards aren't good enough The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business....

...General interest outside your locality and outside your industry is what makes a case for notability.

Greenbreww (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to my interest, Greenbreww, I've only been to Chicago once and have never heard of this place, but what has retained my interest in this AfD are the hints of COI among some of the edits. I have a keen interest in internet behavior, including hoaxes like lonelygirl15 where I was one of the people involved in investigating that hoax. That's my angle. So, it was fairly clear to me that you had some interest in the article subject here. In fact, I hypothesize that you don't only live 1.6 miles away, and have tasted their beer, but that you also either dislike the brothers or have some other business interest adverse to them.

Now, I am well aware that articles like this can be subject to spamlike content. But I checked google and and saw how darn many references they have in the media. That's crosses the line for coverage on Wikipedia. Maybe part of that is just good PR on their part, but they have generated enough press to be notable (including, for example, outside of Chicago, two references to their beers in the NYTimes in the past year.) Your position is that the local press is biased because Two Brothers advertises in them, so you discount the use of those sources as counting towards notability. That's a not a crazy argument, but this place has more than just one local puff piece out there.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live on the E side of Winfield - get a map out and see the distant to the brewhouse. Any rate the passive aggressive Ad Hominum is not relevant anyway, what is, I have been there, and on more than one occasion and found the beer overrated. Now the beer was drinkable... as drinkable - say MGD or Goose, but award winning - NO. I'm of Central European stock, and know beer. Further more, this article is bold face puff and free advertising and inconsistent with Wikipedia philosophy. Finely, I have no business interest adverse to the TB, I work as an IT admin.Greenbreww (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Your personal opinion that the beer is crappy and the press about them overblown mimics my thoughts about Miley Cyrus.--Milowent (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it Wikipedeans want to put words in people's mouths, I said " The beer was overrated", but was drinkable, as MGD. This is not crappy beer just not Award Winning beer. Please restrain from this kind of assumption and stick with the discussion of the article. Thanks.Greenbreww (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for offending MGD drinkers.--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. This is a consumer business with a local physical plant. It sells things to the general public under its own brand. It's been through the AfD wringer once already. Seems to have at least some coverage outside of sites and publications that cater only to beer enthusiasts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources seem to confer notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the article in it's present form, I will be willing to let it stay. But again, Wikipedia is information, not a forum of advertising.Greenbreww (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there is unsourced material in the article that is kinda spammy that probably should be removed if there is no sourcing, but perhaps not the wholesale excision you just performed.--Milowent (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add what you think, but the wholesale rejection by Goetheanan is not going to get us to a place of agreement.Greenbreww (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can this be closed as "withdrawn by nominator" now? (The only delete "votes" are all from the one source). --Paularblaster 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_link.png

Comment ONLY in this form [2] will move to close this afd not when this article is shilling as a times square billboard like this [3]...Greenbreww (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I note that the nominator has removed this source (among others) from the article, which is a book published by an academic press providing significant coverage of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have read the source mentioned by Phil Bridger and read the page history and I now think that the nominator is biased against Two Brothers Brewing. Incidentally, I believe that a moratorium on edits by participants in this discussion on Two Brothers Brewing should be called. -- allen四names 15:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the creator of this article is a great deal more bias then I am. I no connection to Tb, and there is strong possibility that the creator of this article has connection or my even being paid for it. I willing to have the article, but I am not willing to have the Times Square, Spamomatic version now on line.. Two brothers is only notable enough to justify a paragraph of two, no more.Greenbreww (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, consensus is clearly way against you on content, so please don't blank out 90% of the article like you just did. Nobody here gets to put down directives as to what can and can't be in any article as a personal privilege.--Milowent (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - NO, Astroturfing, YES. Rightness of my argument is clear. Now if this just a voting majority, then It's clear I lost, but just because more are wrong than right, don't make make it right. Might don't make right. This article is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia policy,(WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOT#HOST WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION) which no one wants to accept. Further more, it's clear, there is economic benefit and as such it seems likely there issue of WP:COI with the author of this article and the gang which now has been assembled. Again '...please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."And lastly, Goehthean acts with out regard to any one, and refuses to make argument and explain his position, other then edit war, which he has a long history this. This is not very Civil.Greenbreww (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squawking about uncivil comments isn't moving the ball any, you sure are good at citing policies for a newby editor. Now you are even edit warring on the article. I am reverting you, and if you revert me again I will call for you to be blocked. Please let's be constructive.--Milowent (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT you never answer the question, or engage the discussion, only lecture, condescension and threats. Typical of a weak argument, BUT I guess policy, rule of law are alien concepts here, in the end I believe TB has paid Goethean for this article, under the Duck [4] policy of wikipeida.

• Keep. The topic has sources from reliable sources and appears to be at least marginally notable. From the vitriol and extremely limited range of edits from the nominator, this appears to be some sort of vendetta beyond anything to do with Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a "vendetta to see right prevail over MIGHT. But, Rules and right is not notable?Greenbreww (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats right isn't always as clear as you seem to think. Personally, I'd be happy to see article or list entries for each and every commercial microbrewery. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is bar, that brews its own beer, in illinois called "Two Brothers Brewing." These things seem true. It has received no particular attention (that is, notability as understood at wikipedia) accept from local newspapers and something called "The Guide to brew pubs in illinois" which mentions every last one of 'em in the state of lincoln. Delete this per the GNG, not a directory, etc... It's not a notable bar, not one of the sources establishes this.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per unambiguous close of previous discussion that closed as "keep" and pretty overwhelming consensus above that bar is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, i.e. due to sources presented by others arguing to keep above. Also, I hope everyone had a Happy Halloween yesterday! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:SNOW. Our notability guide doesn't say that local newspapers aren't eligible as reliable sources. In addition, calling the Chicago Tribune a "local newspaper" is a really strange argument. The book reference makes a very good argument as to why it is notable; having a reputation in the area as having a reputation in Chicago for having good beer even among other brewers. -- Atama頭 20:00, 2 November 2009 (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.