Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamworks Brewing Company (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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Steamworks Brewing Company
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, no reliable sources. Of the three sources currently offered, one is Steamworks' own site, and the other two are jocular blogs in The Vancouver Sun about a special beer brewed to celebrate the Sun's 100th anniversary in 2012. TheSun may well be a reliable source for some things, but hardly when blogging about their own anniversary. Google finds evidence that the company is well promoted, but I don't see any independent coverage that goes to notability. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - While most of the immediately available sources are local papers with not much to report on, hobbyist blogs, or review sites, there's a surprisingly large amount of coverage, and a fair amount of it is usable. For example, CBC has covered the brewery many times (1 2 3 4), including this example citing Steamworks as the originator of a new brewing process. These articles, combined with a mention in HuffPost and the hundreds of local news site articles should be enough to establish notability. Sellyme Talk 04:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow me to paste the text from the above source saying they demonstrate a new brewing process:" We saw Vancouver's first version of this style of beer, Steamworks' Flagship IPA, win the best IPA and best in show at the 2016 B.C. Beer Awards," she told On The Coast host Stephen Quinn. "[Hops] are added at the end of the boil, and dry-hopped during fermentation. This adds a lot of hop flavour and aroma, but very little bitterness... Cloudy and juicy! Generously hopped with Mosaic, Galaxy and Citra hops for an intense tropical fruit aroma and just a touch of bitterness. Available by itself in six packs of bottles, or as part of eight-pack tall-can mash-up packs. " Sorry, but "intense tropical fruit aroma and just a touch of bitterness" does not amount to SigCov.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article does need referencing improvement as written, and should certainly be flagged for that, but Sellyme has demonstrated that reliable source coverage does exist to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sellyme, but agreed that more refs would be preferable. Calm Omaha (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the majority of the coverage is short mentions like this one: ""The Flagship IPA is a Northeast style IPA. This is a cloudy and juicy IPA like those made famous in Vermont, as opposed to the clear, pine and citrus West Coast IPAs we're used to: 6.7 per cent, available at their Vancouver and Burnaby taprooms." This is not only the opposite of SIGCOV, it is also basically an AD.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A run-of-the-mill craft brewery with no indications of notability. Most articles are either quotations/interviews with the founders or reviews of the beers which is a normal part of marketing for this type of product. There is no in-depth intellectually independent coverage on the company which is what is required to establish notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have plenty of news coverage that can be used to expand the article. 104, just because a source doesn't use a neutral and dispassionate tone like a Wikipedia, it doesn't mean we can't pull the basic facts out and rewrite the prose in WP's voice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:14, 10 April 2018 (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.