Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VandeStreek


 * 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. Arguments about COI and suchlike have been discarded. The issue is sourcing and while there are not a lot of bolded comments the nature of the sourcing has been closely examined and the consensus is that they do not meet the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 07:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

VandeStreek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable regional brewery that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage and notability. From my reading, no major awards have been won by the brewery (the company was awarded a forth place and "bronze" award in regional competitions) and a lack of news coverage outside of the Netherlands indicates a WP:GEOSCOPE failure. As far as depth of coverage is concerned, the vast majority of the article's content is in violation of WP:NOTSPAM, as it contains press releases, public relations, and announcements that could be seen as advertisements. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Despite the ongoing WP:COIN and possible WP:Arbcom case, I've made it clear that me creating VandeStreek was not a WP:PAID situation, let alone an undisclosed one. I hope that doesn't influence anyone in this discussion., two things: 1) WP:GEOSCOPE is about the notability of events, not companies. 2) I'm sorry, it annoys whenever I'm asked the same question, but I have to ask, did you take a moment to check the references used? To cite WP:NCORP, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". De Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad and RTV Utrecht are reliable independent news outlets. They are mentioned in Utrecht Hop!, a book about the Utrecht beer scene. To me, notability has been met. I've used the brewery's own website for information on some of their beers, if that's too much, I'd be happy to improve it further. Taking out any perceived promotional material should be the first step, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ( — Note to closing admin: Soetermans (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. )  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Long response and a breakdown of each source incoming. As far as the article's sources are concerned, the first covers the rise of special brewing in the Netherlands, and while it does mention the owners of VandeStreek, the article only uses them as an example and is primarily concerned with the large topic of special brewing. In source #2, one of the owners of the brewery in question provides a list of his weekend activities, in which list he mentions his home-brewing history in passing. Source 3  is a news article detailing the opening of the new VandeStreek brewery while also giving a brief history of the brewery. Source 4  is a news story about the opening of a new brewery in Utrecht, and while information is given, the three paragraphs written do not go into any depth about the history or operation of VandeStreek. Source 5  is the book Utrecht Hop!, which serves as a guide to the beers of Utrecht. The book lists VandeStreek as a brewery in Utrecht, but again does not provide significant coverage of the brewery, nor is the book actually about VandeStreek (therefore I would consider this a listing or a mention in passing). Source 6  is the primary source of the article as well as the website of VandeStreek, as much of the information found on this site is reproduced in the other sources, which are mainly news articles. Source 7  is a list of the 2016 dutch beer challenge, in which VandeStreek is mentioned (in name, no description) as the winner of a bronze metal for its Dark IPA. Note that the Dutch Beer Challenge began in 2015, and the award was given in 2016. Source 8  is an article/review of beers made in Utrecht. VandeStreek is named here amoung 4 other beers as "misses" and no coverage is given to the article subject beyond a brief description of the beer. Source 9  is brief story about an Italian ice cream made with VandeStreek beer. Source 10  does not mention VandeStreek at all, but does mention an Utrecht produced beer used in an award-wining (4th place) Italian ice cream. Source 11  is press release in a local newspaper detailing the opening of the VandeStreek brewery. A brief history of the company is given, but nothing in depth. Source 12  is another, even briefer report on the opening of VandeStreek. Again nothing is added, and the same sections and quotes are used from source 11. Source 13  is a press release announcing the launching of VandeStreeks non-alcohol IPA. Source 14  is a list of tastiest alcohol-free beers, in which VandeStreek is briefly mentioned as a contender.Source 15  is a press release from VandeStreek itself announcing a product. And source 16  is a story from a dutch newsite in which VandeStreek's summer ale is judged to be the best in Utrecht, but no information is given about the actual brewery. In my view, the sources provided violate WP:GEOSCOPE, as they are all are Dutch newspapers reporting on a regional event (in this case, the brewery's activities). It is to be noted that (to my knowledge) no sources cited about VandeStreek are outside of the Netherlands. In addition, no information provided by the sources is in-depth, as they mostly re-tread what is provided by VandeStreek's website. To my knowledge, only a few paragraphs of information exist about the brewery, and all of this information comes from a primary source. If we were to remove the WP:NOTSPAM content, there would be nothing left to the article in question. I also believe that, given how little coverage of substance exits about VandeStreek, it should be considered non-notable and unencyclopedic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're again saying it fails WP:GEOSCOPE. That notability guideline is clearly about events, not about the activities of companies. You're dismissing reliable sources because they are in Dutch, that's not the WP:GLOBAL aim of the English-language Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion, and if you believe it fails notability is one thing, but that you keep citing an unrelated guideline and would remove everything, including said reliable sources, makes me doubt your objectivity in this AfD., as editors involved with my COIN/Arbcom case, could you take a look? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From the text of WP:GEOSCOPE, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." As far as the Dutch news articles cited by the article are concerned, the activities of VandeStreek (such as the opening of the brewery, the launching of a new beer, etc) are events. While the GEOSCOPE guideline is for events and not companies, if we do not consider the activities and operations of a small company notable, why should the company be considered notable, especially when next to no other information exists? This also does not solve the main issue I have, in that the article has very little substance outside of WP:NOTSPAM content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a different interpretation of WP:GEOSCOPE, which clearly is not in the text. From GEOSCOPE, italics my emphasis:

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". The subject of the article is a brewery, not an event. That I've used sources that describe something that happens with the subject is not the subject either, but to describe its history and development. Sources like De Volkskrant and Algemeen Handelsblad that describe the history is not SPAM. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m in agreement with you that your first two sources are not spam, but having read through them (and I would request other editors do the same) nothing indicated to me that the article subject was particularly notable. Yes, they described the rise of a small local brewery, but I am still of the opinion that no real notability was establiahed by these articles. Note that these news articles were not of significant depth or length. VandeStreek has yet to attain significant coverage, nor has it shown itself to be different from countless other breweries by establishing an immediate or lasting impact in the industry. As far as the other sources are concerned, I still believe that events such as the launching of a new beer or the opening of a new location that is not reported on outside of the subject’s regional area fails to meet GEOSCOPE. And even if my GEOSCOPE argument is stuck down, I fail to see the notabliy of the subject due to a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the only policy I'll quote is WP:NOADS and it sure looks like advertising to me. But really why I recommend deleting is just the size. I decided to compare production volume with a microbrewery that I've visited and know (deep in my smallest bones) that is just too small for a Wikipedia article. (Its brewery could fit on a parking lot for say 8 cars) Looking up the stats I found out it does have a Wikipedia article and produces 6,000 US BBLs per year. VandeStreek produces 340 US BBLs per year (about 5% of the other brewery). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , to WP:NOADS I'll again cite WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:Breweries does not say anything about output. You yourself are comparing another vandeStreek with another microbrewery that you visited, and you've come to the conclusion that vandeStreek's production three years ago is not enough. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, Notability (breweries) is an essay, not policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel like the subject is being given a fair treatment here, just because of my fuck ups with paid editing. added the COI tag, when there was already a tag for possible undisclosed paid editing (which I've stated before that it wasn't), was rather quick to nominate both Arne & Carlos and vandeStreek for deletion and keeps citing GEOSCOPE, which is not about companies. on the other hand was also involved in the COIN discussion and is judging the subject by comparing their own experiences. I'm pinging, three uninvolved admins that I've known for years through WP:VG. They might also vote delete, but I have faith in them that their judgement won't be clouded. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been doing some more searching, I haven't got the time right now to add them properly to the article, but here are some more sources, including international ones, which are clearly independent of the subject, without any "promotional" tone to them.

I'll try to add them to the article as soon as possible. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * UK website BeerGuild mentions them
 * Polish Jerry Brewery does too
 * The World Beer Awards entries on Dark Roast, Koper and BlackBock
 * Esquire's Hong Kong website mentions vandeStreek's alcohol free IPA
 * Dutch newspaper and website AD.nl mentions them again
 * Stichting Erfgoed Nederlandse Biercultuur (Foundation Heritage Dutch Beer Culture) has an entry on them
 * Ronald van de Streek is interviewed by consumers' rights TV program Kassa on alcohol free beers.
 * The BeerGuild article is a press release announcing an international collaboration brewing event. Note that in the article VandeStreek is listed as a "participating brewery", so the independence of the article should be taken with a grain of malt.  mentions VandeStreek among several other breweries participating in a regional brewing event, but does not discuss the brewery in depth. The hong kong esquire article  likewise mentions a VandeStreek beer (among many others) as an example of non-alcoholic beers, but does not provide in depth coverage of VandeStreek. This local news article  is entirely trivial, as it mentions only that local breweries (inducing VandeStreek) are donating stolen barrels of beer after a robbery.  provides the brief history of the VandeStreek brewery, but I should be noted that this organization (the nederlandsebiercultuur) acts akin to a chamber of commerce, and provides addresses and contact information for breweries. Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery. The information provided by nederlandsebiercultuur is also a retread of information that can be found on VandeStreek's website, and again it does not establish the encyclopedic notability of the brewery. The same goes for the interview on a dutch television channel  which discusses the brewery's plans for its non-alcoholic beer.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery"? What? You again have an incorrect reading of Wikipedia guidelines, as WP:AUD, italics my emphasis, says "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". That's what it says. It says nothing that sources should be available in English, it says nothing about the notability of a Dutch brewery. Concerning AUD, I've used several national newspapers' websites, which you disregard. I've used local websites. I've even found a mention by the Hong Kong Esquire, yet you keep on repeating that vandeStreek is WP:FARAWAY. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is the key. The Hong Kong Esquire source lists a VandeStreek beer among 9 other beers and gives no indication of the significance of the company. The description of the beer in the article is shorter than this response is. Certainly a trivial mention.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's already "significant coverage" by other sources, remember what AUD says? National newspaper Algemeen Dagblad's website AD.nl has a piece on them! I mentioned Esquire Hong Kong again because of your WP:FARAWAY tunnel vision, your incorrect reading of first GEOSCOPE and now AUD. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - per above, I was pinged by Soetermans. Yes, I know him, and have worked with him in the past, but only on video game articles. I have no preconceived notions on Netherlands breweries though, but have participated in hundreds and hundreds of AFDs, so I think I can give an unbiased stance here. The closing Admin can decide on that though. I'll give a stance, but will need some time to look into the subject first, as again, I'm not familiar with it. I can say though, that I disagree with the notion that the article is currently promotionally written. I'm sure someone could point out a thing or two that could be tweaked, and they may be right, but its be just that, minor rewordings, not an insurmountable problem affecting the core content of the article. Sergecross73   msg me  19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Geoscope is not the correct criteria; however WP:AUD, which says a similar thing for corporations is a thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see one dutch national newspaper - "de volkskrant". Being dutch newspapers doesn't mean they are regional/local newspapers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm having a hard time coming to an !vote on this, but some conclusions I have so far:
 * WP:GEOSCOPE does not apply - that's for events. Breweries aren't events. I can't believe the arguments went anything beyond that.
 * The article is not overly promotional in its tone or content, nor is there any specific evidence that Soetermans has any sort of COI connection to the subject.
 * I don't even believe WP:AUD or any of the "local coverage only" variant arguments apply really, if they're being recognized for "World Beer Awards" or by Esquire of Hong Kong when the subject is from the Netherlands.


 * So really, my only hang up is whether or not they meet the plain old WP:GNG. There's a lot of sources being discussed, but many appear to be passing mentions or database entries. Sergecross73   msg me  18:15, 7 December 2017 (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.