Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Deck Brewing


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Flight Deck Brewing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO without significant independent sourcing. The sources provided do not cover the company in detail and being named the best tasting room in the state is not a major honor. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems sufficiently sourced by (ten different) independent outlets, which is the crux of WP:GNG. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of sources that matters. Most of the sources are trivial. Most local institutions get trivial mentions in local news sources. Where are the significant sources as required by GNG?--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're looking at different WP:GNG pages. That aside, the notable aspects of the business are all suitably referenced. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "[[WP:GNG|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.]]" Where is the significant coverage?--User:Namiba 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I advise you to not look at Casco Bay Brewing Co. or Sea Dog Brewing Company, which have zero in-line references (the former even survived a discussion such as this). - Seasider53 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bringing up other articles is not a proper defense. Wikipedia does not create notability. -- A Rose Wolf  16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - The sources that give the article the most coverage are its own website, , and . The one media source which gives the subject any in-depth coverage of any kind is the Portland Press Herald,  and . The rest are mentions and mentions, no matter how many there are, will never amount to notability. What makes the subject any different than any other brewery? What sets it apart? Is there in-depth coverage in any other sources not contained in the article? The answer to the last question is no. I've completed a WP:BEFORE and find no evidence this company is more or less notable than any other brewery and no SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. -- A Rose  Wolf  16:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a business, so the applicable standard is WP:NCORP. That guideline states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Barring some sort of coverage in the regional or national press, 100 local stories won't save the article. Since all I can find it the latter, the subject is not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.