This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
So after AFD decided to keep this list (and numerous similar ones) it was moved to a new title, the references were removed (or exiled to see also) and the list was then deleted as unreferenced. The same tired old policy links were given in the edit summary that failed to convince the AFD. Laughably, the first link, WP:LISTCOMPANY, explicitly states that companies do not necessarily need to meet the notability requirement to be included on a list. I am restoring the page. If you want it gone, take it back to AFD. This deletion by the back door is just not on. SpinningSpark 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring unreliably sourced WP:NOTDIRECTORY violations via copy-paste moves and without consensus is way more laughable. The references just aren't sufficient quality, sorry. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of NOTDIRECTORY exactly do you think applies here? None of it rules out such a list. It has been established at AFD that these lists are short enough that WP:CSC applies and they can be comprehensive. I don't think the sources are so bad for this kind of article, but in any case, poor sourcing by itself is not grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference on this page is a pair of unreliable directories. That is a prima face violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I didn't delete anything (other than the WP:NOTDIRECTORY content), I just redirected the valid content to a better title. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear, a lack of reliable sources is a reason for deletion, whether you are using "deletion" in the technical sense or the colloquial sense of material removed by edit. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy does not say that a lack of reliable sources in the article is grounds for deletion, it says "[a]rticles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" are grounds for deletion. That is not the same thing. So what are we looking for from a source in this article? Essentially, only that the brewery exists (or exists in Nebraska). The first reference is to the Brewery Collectibles Club of America. This is a long established organisation and the site does not appear to be a personal site or a blog. If anybody has reliable information on what Breweries exist in Nebraska then I would have thought that an organisation specialising in brewery collectibles would have it. I would also point out that the editor who originally created this article referenced every entry to the home page of the brewery. Surely a brewery is a reliable source for its own existence? But someone (ahem) deleted them all as spam. So what references would you find acceptable? A quick gbooks search shows that book sources could be found for most, if not all, the entries with at least a passing mention, but I don't see the point of going to that effort when we already have sources listing them all in one place. SpinningSpark 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the copy-paste is not a violation of anything. Copy paste is acceptable if the attribution is taken care of by pointing to it in an edit summary. To preserve the history it would be necessary to undo the move of the original article altogether, which I assume you do not want to happen. SpinningSpark 22:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
