Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockford Brewing Company


 * 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. I'm sorry PinkFloydhead but it takes more then simply existing to get an article here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rockford Brewing Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY, won't be opening for another five months, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources apart from some local press coverage. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - has already been speedy deleted once under db-corp. New small brewery like thousands of others with nothing notable about it. noq (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Rockford Brewing Company is a legit business, owns the building, in the middle of construction, and filing taxes for sales made in 2011. Construction on the taproom is complete in June 2012 and doors open to the public in July, this is all notable as it is a physical actual entity doing business unlike 'thousands of others'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it looks like it will definitely be a legitimate business, but there's no indication of how it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia: please have a read of WP:COMPANY for more information on what sort of businesses get included in Wikipedia. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * definition of notable per wikipedia - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. "  Multiple websites and news organization links have been provided, more exist, and more are coming.  Appears to be notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A brewery that has not started brewing reported in a couple of blogs, a local paper and a local radio stations local news website. Not really significant coverage is it? noq (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SIGNIFICANT to the local community, the city of Rockford, the City of Grand Rapids, and to the Craft Beer industry of Michigan -- YES. Rockford Brewing Company is a current operating business by the laws of Michigan, has a liquor license by the laws of Michigan, pays taxes to the State and Federal Government, has 6 significant bank accounts, has a legion of fans on Facebook, owns a building, owns a significant amount of equipment, employs three people, has hosted multiple charity events, and continues to grow.  Anyone disputing and over-analyzing the word 'significant' needs to spend at least 1 hour away from their laptop screen and get out and see the sun once in awhile.  It's good for ya!  Too much computer time bad! bad!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment ... but not significant to Wikipedia. A small brewery that does not brew is not significant to anyone. Having a building, or a license or paying taxes (like most people and companies do) having bank accounts - like most people and companies - employing the grand total of 3 people - less than most pubs/bars, continuing to grow? Wow, what will it be like when it actually starts producing something other than hot air? noq (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coq, you sound like a bitter disgruntled person with two much time on your hands.
 * Comment Can we please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL, and avoid disparaging remarks? Thank you. Scopecreep (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * definition of notable per wikipedia - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " Multiple websites and news organization links have been provided, more exist, and more are coming. Appears to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkFloydhead (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Vote for it to stay, although my userID may be perceived as biased. Appears that regardless of this outcome, the brewery will open doors to the public in July 2012 and the page would be created at that time if not allowed earlier. comment added by RockfordBrewing  —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment Just being open would not automatically make it notable either. I see nothing to suggest that it would become notable then. Maybe in the future it would become so but most small brewers never reach that level. noq (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I do indeed like how Mr. Wikipedia Noq gets to decide the definition of "Notable", against actual Wikipedia policy. Top notch!RockfordBrewing  —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment Hmmm - Where in Wikipedia's policy guidelines does it state that existence = notability? From my reading it seems that the exact opposite is stated. It also seems to me that a read of WP:SOCKPUPPET by RockfordBrewing and PinkFloydhead might be appropriate. noq (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Craft breweries have a presence in a lot of secondary sources (trade publications, press in Michigan, etc.), that's not included here. The TBDs in the infobox is a tip-off that this isn't ready. Just bring the article back when you've racked up some press coverage, include images of the product/functioning facility. No biggie. Prburley (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Read Run-of-the-mill - this is a small enterprise with nothing notable about it. it's not even producing its main product yet! At present it could qualify for speedy deletion under 'blatant self promotion'. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2012 (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.