Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant

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. Michig (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No coverage outside advertising. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - PennLive is a statewide publication in Pennsylvania and appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Lebanon Daily News is a local paper for Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia Business Journal appears to be an RS for Philadeplhia business news. This book appears to be an RS for brewing in Delaware. It seems to verge on WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL but it's already a pretty big chain as well. Article need clean-up to remove WP:PROMO material though, but AFD is not clean-up FOARP (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One has to wonder if the nominator was too busy rattling off all these acronyms instead of actually looking to see if a variety of quality sources exist. Turns out the nom's assertion of "No coverage outside advertising" is false. Here are two stories from the Harrisburg Patriot-News; here's a couple stories from the Greenville News; several from the Wilmington News Journal; couple from the Delmarva Daily Times; this from the Camden Courier-Post; a story by the Baltimore Business Journal; another by the Newark Post, and several from the Philadelphia Inquirer. But allow to me to complain real quick about those acronyms. A quick glance at the article's history would have revealed that this article was created by a Wikipedia Education Program student. Oblique statements like "Fails WP:NCORP. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ... Fails WP:SIGCOV." are hardly going to encourage new contributors to stay with the project. Whether the nom didn't bother googling for sources or didn't believe the sources satisfied the notability criteria, they could have taken an extra 30 seconds to write out something more friendly and clear to a new user, e.g., "I don't think there are enough quality, independent sources covering this company in depth to satisfy the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia." 2601:47:4001:E830:783C:C8EE:D1BA:7FB0 (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One has to wonder if the crass paid editor above who has been busy rattling off whole bunch of churnalism articles instead of actually looking to determine what these acronyms actually mean, and how worthy the churnalism article are? Now they have listed each of the pages in turn, I will go through each of them, and examine them. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having examined them, most are covered by WP:ROUTINE as it is the restuarant critic providing a listing inluding an address or organisation, that are basest of coverage, and very low quality, listing what it does, high spots of specific foods, menus etc. Several are straight up blogs and are non RS. The rest an financial information akin to startup that it covered by WP:NCORP. Pure run of the mill mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Scope Creep, I'm not a paid editor and I've never been to Iron Hill before; I stumbled upon this article when researching the WP Education Program. (In fact, I'm a former user who left the project several years ago because I got tired of a culture where users spent more effort policing others than writing content. Consider this consent for a CU to run my IP if you are not inclined to believe me.) Back to this AfD: None of the sources I listed are "straight up blogs" (hence why I also listed the publication names); they're all reputable news organizations. Obviously, scientific journals are not going to be writing about restaurant companies or breweries – restaurant critics and food writers will be the ones. When you look at these sources in aggregate (and you should have looked at potential sources before you even nom'd this instead of making someone else do the work of finding them; remember: "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet"), the coverage extends beyond just openings and closings to information about the background of the company, the business strategy, corporate expansion, a partnership with a college, food offerings, recognition/awards, even a conflict with a city. This indicates that there has been a diversity of coverage – all of it independent, so it does not fail WP:ORGIND as you falsely asserted. It also passes WP:SIGCOV despite your contrary assertion; the coverage directly addresses the company beyond trivial mentions. And finally, I believe it passes WP:ORGDEPTH in that the examples of coverage above (which are not the only sources out there, either; this was merely from a cursory Google search) provide an "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The coverage exceeds "brief mentions" and it would clearly be possible to incorporate the information from these sources to write more than a stub about the brewery. You argue that the coverage is routine, but I would counter that by pointing out even the stories about openings and expansions go beyond the perfunctory, two-paragraph notices you sometimes see in a newspaper's business section. Instead, these sources tend to include additional information, such as the company's background, how it's approached expansion, and how it fits into its markets. And inexplicably, Scope Creep, while the story currently has mediocre sources that should be improved, you actually removed a reliable newspaper source as well as sentence containing encyclopedic information (number of locations; expansion plans) that could easily have been reworded to a neutral tone. I think it's bad form to be removing a reliable source from an article and then nominating it for deletion partially on the basis of lack of independent sources. 2601:47:4001:E830:80F0:2FCC:FFEF:A78B (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with editor above that the nom could have been more helpfully worded. I don't think simply stating "It's churnalism" really addresses the sourcing from local/regional/state-wide news sources in multiple states available for this brewery/chain. I think it should also be pointed out that this brewery/restaunrant chain does rise above (just) run-of-the-mill material since it has now existed for mre than 20 years, has opened a relatively large number of locations, and is part of a prominent movement in gastronomy (microbreweries). It also has substantial coverage in guides to breweries (see, e.g., 1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources have been identified and rejecting all of them as "churnalism" is one editor's opinion which is justified neither by policies nor by guidelines. Calling another editor "crass" is as objectionable as an accusation of paid editing without evidence. Mentioning a the geographic area that a regional business operates in is encyclopedic coverage, as is mentioning the number of locations. Removing that content is inexplicable. A trout to Scope Creep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a very small COI here - I've actually eaten at Iron Hill 3 or 4 times. Mostly it's a fairly nice brewpub - better food than most, most of the beers are too hoppy (what else is new?). All that personal stuff means next to nothing, except that I know the business actually exists - unlike many other articles that come through AfD. I never have seen notable articles in the wild about it. But some of the articles above look ok. Also the 2 Hagley Museum and Library refs - sorta "oral history" interviews about the brew pub industry - are from a well-known business history archive (funded by the DuPonts). I'd consider the 2 together as one reliable source. Which puts me right on the line notable/non-notable. Maybe the personal stuff does matter (nice prime rib Sunday mornings). Feel free to ignore this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indicates that there is enough coverage. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact courierpostonline as well. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2019 (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.