Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Judge Certification Program

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. Agent 86 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Judge Certification Program

This article fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG It includes no sources and no references and should be deleted. Mikebe 11:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails to mention the source of the information it contains.Patto1ro 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This article was prod'ed and prod2'd. Both tags were removed and this AfD was listed, although the tag wasn't added to the article. I've done that now. Note, however, that "BJCP" redirects to "Beer Judge Certification Program", which explains the slightly odd syntax of the AfD tag at the article. I've assumed that the nominator intended to nominate the article and not the redirect. No opinion on the AfD itself, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed to reference article instead of redirect. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. As far as I can tell, the only body set up to standardize judging at brewing contests. Several of the larger beer brewing software applications use BJCP style guidelines. Competition program is shared with theAmerican Homebrewers Association, who also "enthusiastically support" them. Some news and other references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Further, check out the site for virtually ANY brewfest or brewers' guild in the U.S. and you'll find most competitions judged by BJCP-certified beer judges and many members touting their certification. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all relevant to the WG:ORG requirements. Secondly, the links you provide are for home-brewing, not for the BJCP. Thirdly, why not just move some of the information to a home-brewing article? This article serves no purpose. Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Published sources are essential in determining notability. While a few of the blog entries are irrelevant, the newspaper articles listed are relevant per WP:N. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable. AFD nomination is part of a crusade by two editors to re-write all of the beer articles in order to bring them in line with a website which is run by one of the editors (note url). In edit summaries, they call BJCP beer style standards "fictitious". Another relevant conversation. I actually support having correctly sourced style guidelines from multiple sources. But I do not support the deletion of guidelines and articles because two editors disagree with them. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we argue this with facts rather than personal attacks. I've actually given up trying to correct the many errors I find in the beer articles because of this kind of response. Just check my recent contributions: most have just removed vandalism or added references. As I said before, I have more constructive things to do with my time than get involved in petty arguments like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patto1ro (talk • contribs) .
  - What did I say that was false? — goethean ॐ 17:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are making personal attacks, and ignoring the question of validity of the article. Secondly, the question is not whether the attacks were false or not, the question is why you made them. And, although this has nothing to do with the proposed deletion of this article, the other editor was and is correct that the Märzen article is mostly inaccurate. If you are interested in accuracy, look here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rzen_%28Bier%29 Mikebe 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 8 print references, including the Wall Street Journal. Clearly a notable organization. Edison 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take an article about an improbable idea, allege that deletion of that article is part of some crusade or censorship and, when asked for reliable sources, throw up a lot of entries to blogs. We've all seen how this ends, right? Well, actually, it should end differently in this case. In addition to the WSJ piece that Edison found (I'm still on the fence about Zymurgy), there are an article whose main subject is the organization and an article that focuses on describing the Program's course of study in the Anchorage Press, a piece in the Baker City Herald that spends several paragraphs discussing the organization and two books that appear to provide some discussion as well. Thus, Keep. JChap2007 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That first Press article is now quoted in the intro to the article; that now explicitly meets the requirements of WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on a crusade. If the article is backed up by reputable references, I have no problem with it being retained. I was arguing against the article as it stood. Adding proper refernces is the correct way to defend its retention.Patto1ro 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Unreferenced can be added to articles to which references need to be added. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on a citation given here which I have now included in the intro, organization has press coverage. It's also been mentioned in books by independent authors, so it satisfies WP:ORG handily. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though originally unsourced, the article now has multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, third-party sources. Sounds notable to me! --Jayron 32 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the now included non-trivial sources. Original deletion reason now void. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, notable, what else is needed? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- primary standards organization for United States homebrewing, and widely referenced in the hobby press. What, you want them to be as influential as CAMRA before they're included? Haikupoet 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haikupoet, and in response to some of the earlier comments. DGG 05:00, 4 December 2006 (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.