User talk:HighKing/Archives/2018/November

Rare Beer Club

HighKing: Thank you for your kind attention to my new article, Rare Beer Club.

You added a notability tag to the article. I believe this decision should be reversed. Please note the following:

• As the history of the article indicates, it was previously in draftspace, where Legacypac determined that the article was notable, though he had other issues with it that I attempted to address before bringing it into mainspace.
• The article includes links to quite a few reliable mainstream sources, including The Los Angeles Times, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal.
• Multiple sources mention the fact that the club was founded by noted British journalist Michael Jackson, stating or implying that it is notable for that reason.
• The article includes, as one might expect, sources from quite a few specialty sites for beer enthusiasts. The variety of the beer sites sourced, however, indicates the club's notability within the beer fan community.

I would also like to compare this article to another article, Wine of the Month Club. That article has never received a notability tag, yet it has a grand total of only six sources, all from local media, compared with my 34 sources from all over.

Because of the above considerations, I am removing the notability tag from the Rare Beer Club article. This of course does not affect the other tags, the issues of which I will deal with separately.

Thanks again,

--Dylanexpert (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Dylanexpert, the criteria for establishing notability for organizations such as this are described at length in WP:NCORP. In relation to this article and its references, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are particularly relevant as is WP:NOTINHERIT. While there are a *lot* of references, I cannot identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Which two references in particular do you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 23:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I reject the idea that some editors have that no company or org is notable and every source is routine. This topic is demonstratably notable as seen in the range and quality of the sources. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I think you've a crossed wire - nowhere have I stated that "no company or org is notable" nor have I stated "every source is routine". You say that "this topic is demonstratably(sic) notable as seen in the range and quality of the sources" - great! Except that's not the criteria for notability for clubs such as this though. All I'm asking is that we ensure that the policies/guidelines are being met rather than, perhaps, voicing a personal opinion.

This article itself still has many problems (should it be notable). There are 34 references on this topic's page - far more than is needed). The article also still reads as entirely promotional, including sentences such as "The Rare Beer Club has received a positive response from print, online and video reviewers", praiseworthy snippets from a variety of publications (some of which fail WP:RS such as blogs) and mentioning that it the RBC is "recommended" in gift guides. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute for a marketing campaign.

I tagged the article for potential notability issues to give the topic experts time to find good references but the author appears to have taken exception and came to my Talk page after removing the tag. Since then, I've politely asked that Dylanexpert highlight the two references he believes meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, Dylanexpert lists "reliable mainstream sources" of The Los Angeles Times, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. As I'm sure you know, "reliable mainstream sources" is not the criteria we should be looking at - let's just accept those publications indeed meet the relevant criteria for reliable sources - but the content of those articles is important. I don't have access to the WSJ at this location just now so I cannot comment on that reference. The LA Times reference relies entirely on information provided by Kris Calef - who owns the Rare Beer Club. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club but for me, I do not regard it as in-depth coverage - closer to a mention-in-passing - and discusses the subscription service and not the organization and likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At a push, it is a weak reference. Other references such as the localbeerblog, mantelligence, berghoffbeer.com, ifmycoastercouldtalk.bangordailynews.com and blog.ggbailey.com, fail WP:RS since they are blogs, the beermonthclub is a PRIMARY source, the beerpulse reference is an Ad therefore PRIMARY, the various obituaries for Jackson don't mention the topic company, references like the Chicago Tribune, artofmanliness.com, brit.co and goop.com include a Rare Beer Club subscription in their lists of gift suggestions for whenever (Christmas, Fathers Day, Holidays) but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Popular Mechanics reference is a mention in passing that talks about how great the service is but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the americancraftberr.com reference is a mention-in-passing plugging the service and fails CORPDEPTH, the hop-cast is basically a vlog and mentions getting a bottle with their subscription and fails CORPDEPTH.

In summary, I do not believe this article would survive at AfD. I cannot locate any references that meets the criteria set down in WP:NCORP for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If many many RS talk about X as part of a group, that is good for notability. Your reading of NCORP is too narrow. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac I think we'll have to disagree. Nowhere does it state that "if many many RS talk about X as part of a group, that is good for notability" (and its a bit worrying to me if you are using this as your own personal guideline for approving articles at AfC!). For example, WP:ORGSIG states "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. The Primary criteria states an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability (criteria listed above this statement) and goes on to say that two sources are the minimum requirements. I'm prepared to wait for a response to my request for sources from either you or Dylanexpert and I'll continue to search for sources myself as I personally believe it should be possible to find sources, but it really isn't helpful trying to blow me off with a one-liner response that my interpretation of NCORP is too narrow (despite my not-inconsiderable experience at AfD) after I've spent considerable time reviewing every reference (which is something I'm sure you must have done when you approved the draft) and found them wanting. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank both LegacyPac and HighKing for debating issues relating to my modest little article. (This commentary will deal only with the issues raised before the most recent discussion between LegacyPac and HighKing.) I particularly thank LegacyPac for standing up for the previous judgment made when the article was in draftspace. However, this conflict between reviewers raises an interesting issue: how many reviewers of an article are too many, particularly when they are discussing only one issue relevant to an article, in this case notability? In other words, if three reviewers decide an article is notable, and two do not, who is right? I think that there should be one and only person reviewing an article, certainly on a particular issue, such as notability, relating to that article. To have multiple reviewers judging one issue is unfair.

HighKing: You said that there are other problems relating to the article besides its notability. However, you tagged the article only because of notability, so I'm only going to deal with that issue.

You say that there are far too many citations. This is a very strange complaint, as my own experience with Wikipedia as well as that of others (as proven by the great frequency of the words "citation needed") is that many if not most Wikipedia articles have too few citations. Nevertheless, I checked out the link you provided, and I don't think you can prove citation spamming, which I think is the relevant issue to which you refer, in anything I've done.

The Los Angeles Times article was written not by a staff writer but by a freelance writer with listed experience as a food reviewer. The impression I received from the tone of the article is that the author, from her experience as a reviewer and authority on beer, has respect for the club and its products and is interviewing Calef to get more background on the club's history for the newspaper's readers. I think it's entirely a subjective call as to whether this content can be considered promotional or not.

As for the Fortune article, does the following passage (and, contrary to what you say, it is clear, in the article's context, that the writer is referring to the Rare Beer Club here) sound promotional to you? "Again, you’re paying a premium for the beer. And while you can opt to skip a shipment or a particular beer in a shipment, you’re still ultimately shelling out $25 for an untried beer, which always carries some risk. Ultimately, deciding whether a beer club is a good choice for you comes down to your willingness to gamble." The writer is here honestly laying out objectively the pros and cons of the club: good quality beer (in the writer's opinion), but less of it than others, and more expensive than others. So he's not writing to please Calef, but because he thinks the club is important enough to the beer drinkers among Fortune's readers that they ought to weigh its pros and cons. Notability proved.

You registered an objection that strikes me as bizarre to the following quote: "The Rare Beer Club has received a positive response from print, online and video reviewers." This is, quite simply, objectively true! Question: what is one reason that the Rare Beer Club is notable? Answer: because it's been frequently reviewed. Question: and were all these reviews positive? Answer: yes. To put it another way, almost any motion picture (which is, after all, a corporate product) that appears on Wikipedia contains a Reception section detailing the reviews the film received. If a film has not been reviewed, or has received very few reviews, it is probably not notable. And those Wiki film articles are allowed to specify whether the reviews were, indeed, positive, so the same right should be extended to my article about another kind of corporate product.

You object to the fact that I cite beer blogs as well as mainstream sources. But the rule says that blogs as sources are "generally unacceptable," not invariably so. What makes this case an exception is that we're not talking about a giant corporation like ExxonMobil here: we're discussing a small, mail-order business. (This also makes your CORPDEPTH objection strange, since the company is the mail-order business; there are no corporate "depths" for the cited articles to explore.) And what the beer blogs lack in mainstream media authority, they more than compensate for in the expertise of the authors in the subject matter -- that is, beer. Indeed, the Berghoff Beer Blog cites Berghoff's over 100 years of experience in the beer industry as proof of its authority on the subject.

I hope I've answered these questions to your satisfaction. In any case, the notability tag is off and will remain off, while I deal with the other issues. Thank you both for a sometimes frustrating, but always stimulating discussion.

Dylanexpert (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dylanexpert and thanks for providing a great response. I'll try to paint some broad pictures in relation to the question of notability and contrast that with what I'm seeing here.

First off, there is a difference between references that establish notability and references to support facts within an article, with the standard for references to establish notability being much higher in terms of independence (intellectual independence especially - check out WP:ORGIND. So, for example, while the LATimes reference is fine as a citation to support something said within an article, it (in my opinion) fails to pass WP:NCORP simply because *every* reference that counts towards notability must meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND - in other words, the reference must be in-depth and independent. ORGIND states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Now, when I look at the LATimes reference and try to figure out what is the original and independent opinion/analysis/etc, I'm left with very little once you take out Calef's contributions as it is an extensive interview. As one example of trying to figure this out, lets take a random statement which looks like the opinion of the authos: "Last year, about half of the featured extreme beers mailed to members in the game-changing Rare Beer Club were produced exclusively for MonthlyClubs.com". The question is, is this some information provided by Calef or the organization, or is it a result of "independent" analysis/research/etc? Looking at references including statements like these are all part of weighing up whether a reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. My point about the LATimes reference is that it fails ORGIND, not that it is "promotional" as such. My point about picking out that single quote is that it *is* a promotional quote. Parts of the article are a bit like an advert for a book or movie where snippets of words or phrases are extracted "'Compelling' - The Telegraph", "'Couldn't stop!' - The Times", "'Best this year by far!' - The Standard", etc.

Another aspect is that this article is supposed to be about the club (the organization) and has been written from this point of view. Yet most of the references discuss the service (frequency, cost, content, customization). None of the references provide any significant in-depth coverage on the organization. For example, when was it formed (what year)? How many subscribers? Where is the distribution center (where are the boxes packaged)? As a suggestion, I believe if this article was written from the point of view of the service, it would be easier to pass notability. Some would argue that the organization and the service are indistinguishable - I would counter that is that's the case, write the article from the service point of view.

Now, that said, I recognize that a subscription service beer club isn't a giant multinational organization with large revenues and employees and therefore finding references that meet the criteria for establishing notability will be more difficult to find. BUT. That does not give it a pass on meeting the standards required.

Finally, I'm surprised you cannot recognize that putting in a statement like "The Rare Beer Club has received a positive response from print, online and video reviewers" followed by an entire section of selected quotes goes beyond factual (from an encyclopedic point of view) and veers into promotionalism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a platform for marketing or promotion. Nor is this article supposed to be some sort of meta-review. That entire section is promotional and unnecessary and I've tagged it as such. It should be deleted. As I said, for now I've tagged it as promotional to give editors a chance to fix the problem but my opinion is that there's nothing of value to keep there. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You said that you would look up online references to the Rare Beer Club that I haven't already cited. I would appreciate it if you would find those references and message me with the information. I spent a great deal of time trying to find the references I already have, but maybe you'll have better luck. And at least I can be reasonably sure that if I insert those references in the article, you won't delete them. Thanks.

Dylanexpert (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is clear to me from the continual removal of tags and your reluctance to accept what I've said that there's nothing I can say that will help you see the problems with the article. Therefore I'll send it to AfD and let others voice decide. You will be welcome to make your case there, as will anybody else. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Phi Alpha Sigma

In regards to Draft:Phi Alpha Sigma, the specific reference for Phi Alpha Sigma at Northwestern University had been added. Is the issue that Baird's and the Cyclopedia of Fraternities is a tertiary source rather than a secondary one? In general with Baird's Manual of American College fraternities being the most significant tertiary source for Fraternities and Sororities, I consider that to be significant.Naraht (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht the issue for me is that by NCORP standards, we need two intellectually independent in-depth sources. I can only see snippets from Baird's but it manual doesn't appear to provide any in-depth information. Likewise, none of the other references appear to satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. Please see WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

HighKing For a Fraternity, I think that WP:NCLUB is the place to start. (But under once notable, always notable, it would be viewed as a national organization, not a local one) I'm not sure what you mean by snippets for Baird's, I think all of the references are from Baird's old enough to be in the public domain. Let me know which years you are having problems with. I also have a number of newspaper mentions (from before it was down to a single chapter), but a general article about a multi chapter annual dinner may not be in quite enough depth (https://newspaperarchive.com/philadelphia-inquirer-feb-20-1897-p-6/) . There is also https://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/studtorg/frats/phialphasigma.html which as an archives would be secondary, I *guess*.Naraht (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht, WP:NCLUB is neither policy nor a guideline and is an essay. Notwithstanding that, it is also intended specifically for football (soccer) clubs. It is not the applicable guideline for this subject matter, which is WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

HighKing, sorry I meant WP:CLUB,not WP:NCLUB, which is Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizationsNaraht (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht, correct but it still requires two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you currently consider it to have zero or one of such references?Naraht (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht, does Baird's provide a "potted history" of the fraternity or is it just included as part of a listing? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

HighKing Not sure what you mean by "potted history". The entire entry as referenced in the 1920s baird is more than a page in total. See https://books.google.com/books?id=1qoVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA506#v=onepage&q&f=false and is all of page 506 and extends onto page 507. That's where most of the information in the first paragraph comes from along with the chapter listing. I just didn't think that some of it was relevant for a Wikipedia article. The entry in the Cyclopedia is from earlier and is more or less just name, date, foundation location and number of chapters.Naraht (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht, these pages uploaded to Wikipedia has the Phi Alpha Sigma section starting on page 389. This is an excellent reference. I've looked and found this reference from the Penn University archives which I believe is also a good reference. I've modified the article. It is best if someone else moves it from drafts though, not that I've worked on it. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

HighKing That wikisource reference is exactly the same as reference 2, the 1905 Baird's, which is page 389. I prefer using books google for references, the OCR tends to be better. I don't see any changes to the draft right now. Naraht (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Naraht I fell into a rabbit hole of editing the article. Where did you get the founding date of April 1888? The sixth edition of Baird's says 1886, the cyclopedia says 1887, Penn University says 1889. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

HighKing The 1920 Baird's.https://books.google.com/books?id=1qoVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA506#v=onepage&q&f=false And since that was the only one to give a specific *day*, I referenced that. what's the appropriate tag, disputed? I tend to use multiple copies of Baird's as references, I think there are a few entries in the chapter list between the 1905 and the 1920, so I wouldn't feel comfortable going to only one.Naraht (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

And the ref that you labelled Baird1920 from Wikisource is incorrect. The Wikisource is from 1905.Naraht (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HighKing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback - Wikipedia article: Artscape (organisation)

Hi HighKing! Thank you for your response on the Wikipedia article "Artscape (organisation". I'm having some trouble understanding exactly what the problem seems to be with the references provided. Would you have a chance to elaborate on that so I can improve the article? Thanks in advance. /Linnea 84.216.65.16 (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References must meet the criteria as outlined in WP:NCORP and therefore must be significant and provide detail on the organization itself. The references that I can locate invariably provide a one-line description of the organization and spend the rest of the article talking about an event or exhibition. Notability is not inherited - therefore while the event or exhibition may be notable and may have been written about, the article needs to include references that show that the organization itself is also notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)