Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Brothers Brewing

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator, (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Brothers Brewing

Article does not meet Wiki standards for notability. Article exists solely for advertising purposes. Lighthope (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject matter meets WP:NOT as there are numerous references to the brewing company in reliable sources, including multiple references in the Chicago Tribune, e.g. [1] and [2], as well as others. Not that the article couldn't be improved and/or rewritten, but it is at least adequately sourced at present, and there are more sources that could be added. Geoff ^T ^C 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is a bad link. Reference 1 itself reads like a paid advertisement, says nothing about the business other than its name, address, and menu, imparting no information of interest to anyone doing research on the subject of brewing or micro brewing. Therefore, this fails to meet notability requirements. Lighthope (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News link. Nominator's assertions are unfounded and without merit. — goethean ॐ 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is far from advertising and includes multiple reliable sources. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable brewpub. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not hugely notable, but worth including. If there were a merge target I woul dbe okay with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2009 (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.