Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zac Carpenter

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

:({{Find sources|Zac Carpenter}})

2nd place in a narrow category in a state fair is not notabilty. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

:The second half of that sentence notes that the subject's 2011 entry won 1st place in its category at the Minnesota statewide competition, which, if you're going into the brewing business in Minnesota, is notable. The whole article should make it clear that notability does not rest only on any one award -- it's the result of a set of accomplishments that earned the subject coverage by multiple media sources as a figure of significant interest in his sphere of activity, and meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29, which states: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Cohee (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable professional beer brewer just getting started in the business who has won a couple of non-notable state fair awards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• KEEP Businessman turns part time into full time, wins awards (regardless of placement) and is documented several different places. Worthy of notice and notable enough for Wikipedia WP:RS. This stub article is no worse than Mark R. Johnsen, Peter Ballantine, Michael Diversey, Philipp Jung and Garrett Oliver, all brewers of some type. Yes, it needs some more work. But, again this is a brand new article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Reply Most of those articles aren't comparable. The New York Times called Peter Ballantine one of the best known brewers in America, and he was a 19th century historical figure, so there are no promotional concerns. Diversey and Jung are also historical figures, now dead. Our standards are much more stringent for biographies of living people. Garrett Oliver has been a professional brewer for 20 years, is described in a book about craft brewing, and has written for Oxford University Press's beer guide. You have a point about Mark R. Johnsen, but no one has nominated that article for deletion, as opposed to this one. This article is based on passing mentions and blog posts. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability of a living person. Do you have a stronger argument? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Reply2 and continued KEEP - WP:Bio For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. When you state, "We need significant coverage ..." it is, at best, a misnomer. It needs to be notable enough with appropriate sources. I find the stub article Zac Carpenter worthy of notice, interesting and unusual enough to keep. It meets WP:Source by having enough sources to support the stub article. The sources clearly has WP:V has verifiability. The article is a stub article and it has the minimum coverage needed for such a stub article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Response I am sorry, but significant coverage is not a misnomer, as it is a core part of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Without significant coverage, it is not possible to determine notability, or construct a verifiable biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Response2 I am stressing content coverage of this stub article that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NNC#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NNC#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability Article content does not determine notability.] While I see that this stub article does not have significant coverage within the article, I find it significant and notable enough with the minimum coverage of content and verifiable sources (more than) for a stub article. It is significant enough for such a stub article. You and I disagree. That is fine. I have not searched for other references or information on this article. I agree it needs work. I still believe, based on the above, that it should be given a chance and kept. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed, several fail WP:RS, The Star Tribune is a blog post, The Stillwater Gazette is a brief quote. Working off WP:ORGIN, I cannot see that this article can provide "verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources". - ManicSpider (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Clarification - I was using WP:ORGIN on the grounds the claim to notability was a business, but I should add that my argument applies equally to WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO -ManicSpider (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E. The subject hasn't been directly addressed in any depth by the sources (few of which are reliable). There may, however, be scope for an article on Bad Weather Brewing Company, but that would require separate evaluation. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per GNG - however, his brewery, Bad Weather Brewing Company, does pass notability guidelines. So perhaps someone can write that article instead. SarahStierch (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - After checking into this company a little, I found, that per its own [http://badweatherbrewery.com/story.html web site], "Bad Weather Brewing operates under an alternating proprietorship with Lucid Brewing Company and Badger Hill Brewing Company in Minnetonka, MN. The three companies brew on the same brewhouse equipment then oversee our individual beers through fermentation and packaging." A company sharing one third of the year brewing and operating officially since March 23, 2013. So at best, the subject is part time and too new. I with draw my support. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

::For clarity, I'm striking through your keeps above. If that's a misunderstanding, please revert. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (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.