Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brewing Network

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brewing Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability is given, that I can see. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following the "Find sources" links above, there is evidence to show that this station exists, though its notability is not fully established as the sources tend to simply mention it - such as this, which says you have podcasts, you have local homebrewing clubs, and you have the brewing network. It doesn't appear to meet our relevant guidelines - Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (media). I am borderline on this at the moment, as I feel there might be enough evidence brought forward to establish why this station is notable beyond a select group of people, though it's not quite there yet. I'd like to see some stronger sources used in the article, and a rationale given in the article for notability. SilkTork *^YES! 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Selectively merge to Microbrewery, since the refs cited above satisfy verifiability and it seems important enough to mention in the article most closely related to Craft brewing, which should have its own article,, since it is a notable subject not identical to Microbrewery. The two mentions in books and the one news listing of an upcoming event do not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A see a few mentions of this media source here and there, but nothing extensive. But some of the unverifiable materials could be removed and the verifiable stuff remain -- for its niche, it does seem to be known.--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (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.