Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewing in a Bag

:{{la|Brewing in a Bag}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brewing_in_a_Bag Stats])

:({{Find sources|Brewing in a Bag}})

Essentially, I suggest this should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a cookbook. A PROD tag with the same assertion was removed by the article's creator who asserts that this is a "description" and doesn't qualify. I've brought it here to let the Wikipedia community decide. (Although it's not relevant to my proposal, I note that this depends on a single source which may or may not be reliable. I researched a number of other web pages containing similar material with similar issues, to my mind.) Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Described in two book sources at least, [http://books.google.com/books?id=yjLqQPU_DzYC&pg=PT83&dq=%22brew+in+a+bag%22+beer&hl=it&sa=X&ei=NTGPUOHwNPPI0AHnuoDYDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA here] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=T8NNVV5bktgC&pg=PA151&dq=%22brew+in+a+bag%22+beer&hl=it&sa=X&ei=NTGPUOHwNPPI0AHnuoDYDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22brew%20in%20a%20bag%22%20beer&f=false here], thus meeting WP:GNG (multiple reliable sources coverage). We're not a cookbook, but we do describe cooking methods or food preparation methods -in fact, we have a whole category about them. --Cyclopia^talk 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Cookbook doesn't apply. However, the article appears to have been composed mostly of Jwalkfour's personal thoughts on the topic at the time of AfD nomination.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brewing_in_a_Bag&oldid=520523363] Ubelowme, instead of tagging the article five minutes after Jwalkfour created the article,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brewing_in_a_Bag&diff=520515973&oldid=520515462] it may have been more constructive to post a friendly note on Jwalkfour talk page. (see New Page Patrol). Regarding the deletion request, significant coverage is in [http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?page=1&sy=intranet&sp=nrm&so=relevance&dt=selectRange&kw=%22Three+Newcastle+Herald%22&dr=1year&pb=all_ffx&rc=10&sfx=headline&sfx=text&submit=Search Serious subject not froth and bubble, Newcastle Herald, 12/12/2011]. [http://blog.newsok.com/thirstybeagle/2012/08/27/all-grain-brew-in-a-bag-tutorial/ The Oklahoman August 27, 2012]. Cyclopia also posted above coverage in books. Collectively, this adds up to keep per WP:GNG. Some other coverage: [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Home+brew+comes+back,+simplified.-a016741554 Home Furnishings Newspaper March 27, 1995] (Brew in a Bag); [http://www.nj.com/insidejersey/index.ssf/2008/12/the_biy_brewityourself_movemen.html Star-Ledger January 1, 2009] "brew-in-a-bag" kits; [http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/features/lifestyle/fritz-and-marias-beer-column/4533858/Golden-Bear-grabs-home-brew-market Nelson Mail December 1, 2011] "simple methods such as kits and brew in a bag remain popular." On a different note, BIAB also means Boyfriend-In-A-Box.[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68520158.html] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks for sharing your opinion of my contributions. I will be sure to treat it with the respect it deserves. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Per the book sources provided above by User:Cyclopia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge. This is worth a sentence or two in the homebrewing article rather than a full stand alone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment - I kind of agree with you myself. The content may be worth more than a sentence or two, but I see that there is a lot of overlap of information. Jwalkfour (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::*Comment True. But it could merge the with something like "The process is similar to regular brewing but in this method........" Then, if it can be expanded a lot, it can break away. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 4 November 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.