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 delete. kurykh 07:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Beer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

disputed PROD diff reason given in edit summary "no thanks". Article is self referenced advertising, no independent reliable sources to assert notability Gnangarra 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnangarra 14:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. No evidence of notability provided. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article contains an independent substantial reference. Seems to satisfy N thusly. WilyD 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment presume you mean the ratebeer site, follow the link become an instant beer expert, this is nothing more than blog site its certainly doesnt rate as a reliable source. Gnangarra 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the prepared foods magazine article. WilyD 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find on "Prepared Foods" as a publication magazine/newspaper is this back to Jan 2001 though according to [1] its website has only been around from 2002. Then theres no listing in the Australian White Pages for Geelong Brewing] Gnangarra 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Findarticles reprints the intro, it seems: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_9_168/ai_56889144 WilyD 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination - arguments to date do not provide a RS worthy of note SatuSuro 15:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — piss poor sources which show no notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- it's a real beer (I've seen a bottle of it myself), but it never achieved anything other than it's brief novelty exposure. This article makes mention of it, but it's the only third party source I could locate. Who'd really want to drink it anyway? :) - Longhair\^talk 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment after looking at Longhairs sources maybe theres an argument for the creation Boutique beer in Victoria, with local knowledge here a Boutique beer in Western Australia is also feasible. As a matter of fact one could create a whole beer garden of Australian boutique brewers. If an editor was wanting to do such an article group I wouldnt be opposed to the article being temporarily moved to userspace for a merge of content as this article/brew isnt sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. Gnangarra 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- there is probably an article in a collected short-lived or novelty beer brands that have appeared in the australian beer drinking market that have not survived or remain below notability threshold SatuSuro 04:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's real, but it's a pretty non-notable novelty product really. Would not be opposed to userfication if someone wishes to do as User:Gnangarra has suggested above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 24 October 2008 (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.