Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beer Chicks

:{{la|The Beer Chicks}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Beer_Chicks Stats])

:({{Find sources|The Beer Chicks}})

Article had been tagged for external link cleanup since May of 2010. I removed the self-promotional links, but the remaining article seems like a lot of self-promotion for people/an organization of very borderline notability, and the article itself is very hazy about whether it's about the people, the website, or both. I really didn't find any sources or assertions of notability outside a very small range. rahaeli (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. Zeus^u|c 06:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've pretty much decimated the article. I am finding some small coverage for them, but not much overall. The coverage as a whole is fairly limp. The main problem is that most of the hits are coming up as articles that they wrote themselves, so a lot of otherwise usable sources would be seen as primary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Even if their business is rightfully removed as a focus of the article, they meet simple author notability with two books from a major publisher, a magazine award, a TV show with named roles, and media attention both from RS magazines that monitor the industry[https://imbibemagazine.com/QA-with-Christina-Perozzi-and-Hallie-Beaune] and mainstream RS (if the LA Times called them experts in their field,[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/15/news/la-dd-coming-to-the-taste-the-beer-chicks-20120809] and they've published multiple books with Penguin, it passes a threshold beyond self-promotion or mentions in specialist literature). The article clearly needed a massive haircut when nominated, and has been improved by it. It's great that self-promo and bad/no sourcing was removed. But basic notability is not dependent on how bad an article used to be or whether an article still needs some work. They are cited as published beer experts by enough high profile independent reliable sources to have an article based on that, regardless of what it once looked like.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm neutral about whether it's better kept at the present title or moved to something more like "Christina Perozzi and Hallie Beaune" (The Siegfried & Roy-edness of this is bothersome, but that happens editorially with duos who achieve notability solely through combined production. If they start producing stuff independently of each other, the article could be split.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include:

:* [http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/15/news/la-dd-coming-to-the-taste-the-beer-chicks-20120809 Los Angeles Times]

:* [http://articles.philly.com/2009-11-13/entertainment/24988063_1_beer-geeks-hallie-beaune-naked-pint Philly.com]

:* [https://imbibemagazine.com/QA-with-Christina-Perozzi-and-Hallie-Beaune Imbibe]

:* [http://www.laweekly.com/squidink/2012/06/08/the-beer-chicks-italian-beer-their-new-book-the-naked-brewer-la-craft-beer-crawl-2012 LA Weekly]

:* [http://www.lamag.com/lafood/digestblog/2011/08/09/beer-chicks-branch-out-with-retail-shop-beer1 Los Angeles Magazine]

:* [http://www.katu.com/amnw/segments/Home-Brew-Beer-174228831.html?m=y&smobile=y KATU News] (short article)

:{{spaced ndash}}NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, nice amount of source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, NorthAmerica's sources suffice. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:59, 6 June 2014 (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.