Deletion of Zac Carpenter

Comment: per , . The subject hasn't been directly addressed in any depth by the sources (few of which are |reliable). There may, however, be scope for an article on Bad Weather Brewing Company, but that would require separate evaluation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:RS)

Comment: I am sorry, but |significant coverage is not a misnomer, as it is a core part of  and . Without significant coverage, it is not possible to determine notability, or construct a verifiable biography
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: and continued '''KEEP''' - io ''For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"1 within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.'' When you state, ''' "We need significant coverage ..." ''' it is, at best, a misnomer. It needs to be notable enough with appropriate sources. I find the stub article Zac Carpenter worthy of notice, interesting and unusual enough to keep. It meets ource by having enough sources to support the stub article. The sources clearly has  has verifiability. The article is a stub article and it has the ''' ''minimum coverage'' ''' needed for such a stub article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:S||WP:V)

Comment: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed, several fail , The Star Tribune is a blog post, The Stillwater Gazette is a brief quote. Working off , I cannot see that this article can provide "verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ORGIN)

Comment: I was using  on the grounds the claim to notability was a business, but I should add that my argument applies equally to  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIN||WP:BASIC||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Most of those articles aren't comparable. The New York Times called Peter Ballantine one of the best known brewers in America, and he was a 19th century historical figure, so there are no promotional concerns. Diversey and Jung are also historical figures, now dead. Our standards are much more stringent for |biographies of living people. Garrett Oliver has been a professional brewer for 20 years, is described in a book about craft brewing, and has written for Oxford University Press's beer guide. You have a point about Mark R. Johnsen, but no one has nominated that article for deletion, as opposed to this one. This article is based on passing mentions and blog posts. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability of a living person. Do you have a stronger argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)