Premium Beer: A standalone article isn't necessary or justified.  There is no agreed definition of what "Premium beer" is; there is certainly no international agreement.  Some of what's here is original research or opinion , and some is sourced to what is clearly AI-generated content - e.g., this article , used as a reference 7 times in the article.  A more reliable reference describes the term as "nonsense".  See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : While there are a few good sources included among the garbage, the lack of a formal definition of the term (and the fact that some of the sources contradict each other) suggests to me this topic isn't quite solid enough for its own article.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maintain as a Standalone Article, But Improve Sourcing : Awesome discourse so far!  Think that the right steps here are to maintain the article as a standalone, and just contribute to improving the sourcing.  Rationale follows: Whether or not we personally feel that this concept is subjective, does not change the fact that it is truly a proper term in the alcohol and beer industry.  The term "premium beer" is used more than 500 to 1,000+ times across Wikipedia, including in the definitions used to describe several notable articles from Heineken to Old Speckled Hen to Red Stripe etc.  This list grows if you include premium "ale" or premium "lager," which are also captured in this article If we delete this article, then we are creating the potential misconception of the use of the term premium as simply being an adjective, across hundreds of articles.  This poses a widespread neutrality issue, as in the absence of this article, the hundreds of articles that invoke this term do not adequately acknowledge that is it a nuanced indsutry term terminology, not an official title.  Merging this article to Beer does not adequately recognize the fact that in its usage, it is used to refer to a specific concept that goes deeper than just the concept of beer, just like how we have standalone articles for Craft beer for production process, or Draught beer for style of serving, Premium Beer explains the usage of the common phrase which describes tier of price/quality/AbV.  The term premium has just as much usage as Draft or Craft, would we propose merging those to Beer as well?  As a final point, I don't think the rationale of sources contradicting with one another substantiates the merge/deletion - any proper term that describes a "tier" in an industry will always have sources contradicting to each other, just like Restaurant ratings it's just important that the article pays proper explanation/objectivity toward the key definitions/authorities.  The article currently speaks to the nuance and interpretability of the concept, and does not asset a singular definition.  Currently, across wikipedia, hundreds of articles assert that "XYZ is a premium beer" - the fact that definitions contradict with each other is even more reason that a central article explaining the nuance and interpretability is helpful.  For example, the term "5 Star Restaurant" is captured by our page Restaurant rating - however, the article explains how restaurant tier can vary based on source/authority, from Michelin, to Magazines, to even smaller local authorities.  If Michelin were to review a restaurant and deem it 3 stars, a local authority deem it 1 star, and a Magazine deem it 5 stars, each using different criteria, we wouldn't throw out the concept of "5 star restaurants" and restaurant ratings because sources contradict each other, because despite its subjectivity across sources it remains a proper term within the restaurant industry.  Premium beer is the same concept, and this article currently, at least, does seem to do a thorough job explaining the leading interpretations/criteria of "premium" status.  If we feel that the term "premium" is subjective and not a formal definition, then that challenges the neutrality of the usage of the term in over 1,000 beer articles across the platform.  (listed below)  Recommendation: Believe the path forward isn't deleting the article, but rather contributing to improving sourcing.  See below for a list of several articles which use the term premium, clearly referring to the industry-specfic concept, if the Premium Beer page is deleted, will now just become an adjective descriptor and challenge neutrality  1. Heineken  2. Old Speckled Hen  3. Phuket Beer  4. Kingfisher (beer)  5. 333 Premium Export Beer  6. Cobra Beer  7. Red Dog (beer)  8. Beer in Australia  9. Foster's Lager  10. Yuengling  11. Rolling Rock  12. James Boag's Premium  13. Beer in Mexico  14. Beer in Morocco and the list goes on.  As a first step in the right direction, I will work on improving some of the sourcing in the near term.  Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 16:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew, I realise you've put some work into the article, but your argument above is essentially that the term exists, and therefore should have a page.  But WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  And there is no one definition of what is a "premium" beer; anyone can legally call their product premium - and many do.  Wikipedia reports on what the sources say.  If sources describe Heineken as a premium lager, that's what we can call it.  We don't call it one because it's > 4.5% ABV and therefore meets some definitions used in some places by some members of the brewing industry.  (It's also only 4.3% in Ireland, so... not a premium lager?)  See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  If you want to work on the article to include such things as no official definition, different ones in different places, use as marketing, etc., then the article could be draftified until ready for mainspace.  As it stands, though, no, it's not ready.  Any lager above 4.5% ABV is considered premium, and any ale above 4.2% ABV is considered premium.  - says who?  Apparently a company with a home brewing app?  They source their article to one you've used multiple times in the article, the Morning Advertiser, a UK marketing company...  See where I'm going with this?  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Batsun!  No, I think that's a bit of a minimization of my point, I'm happy to clarify.  At this point I think let's give it some space for others to take a look, as I think we've both done a good job explaining our thought processes.  As my final note Updates to the Article** -- Significant expansion of sourcing, as well as tweaks to language to better address the nuance of the topic.  The original source Batsun/others raised as being used several times is no longer there.  Additional sources added showing usage of term all the way since 1940's.  Batsun, to address your point - no my argument isn't "The term exists so it should have a page" - and I think anyone reading this thread would agree that that's a bit of an intentional minimization.  My point is that this is a proper term in the alcohol industry, used Pervasively, used hundreds of times across wikipedia, and very easy to confuse someone unaware that it is an industry concept into thinking it's just an adjective (i.e. "Wow! all these brands are premium!") The current article has taken steps forward in sourcing, and pays adequate attention to the informality of the definition, however the centrality of its usage in this indsutry and throughout the platform merits it being explained/contextualized.  To your point about 4.5% to 5% - sure, I think it's easy to make the point that you're making which is that different areas/sources have different thresholds for the %.  However the principle stands, which is that one definition of premium is that the higher the AbV the more "premium" the brand is.  The article has been amended to reflect that as opposed to set in stone % thresholds, thank you for that feedback.  As of next draft there is no source used "multiple times" and it's spread relatively evenly.  I welcome any others to pitch in to editing the site, but I believe the current deletion tag should either be replaced with a tag to call for additional edits (if still necessary) or removed when we are satisfied.  But I am of the mind that A. The pervasiveness of this term merits the article, not just that "the term exists" - it is important and used colloquially and officially in the industry B. Like any topic, you can point to a source that is uncredible, but the article has been amended to and includes much better sourcing that is credible.  A call for improved sourcing is not a call for deletion.  C. I agree the original draft could have started in the draftspace, however, at  this time the article is now much farther along and should be addressed where it is with any relevant edits.  We should not be retroactively drafting it because it should have been drafted before.  At this point it feels like many of the original qualms have been addressed However, if Batsun has a more profound issue just with the belief that the concept of premium beer should not be described/explained on Wikipedia, and instead should just be used wherever it arises, then I defer to other members of the community to take a look here and pass judgment.  Thanks for all of the awesome discussion on this one!  Has been very enjoyable learning more and thinking through your points.  Andrewkazimi ( talk • contribs ) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  09:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Even after reading all the above, I still think that it should be merged, but it should be a real merge with some of the article merged .  Bduke ( talk ) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Premium beer" is a notable term in the marketing industry, and, based on the present sourcing and other reliable sources, an article that is not a mere dictionary definition can be written about: (1) the different definitions of the term [18] ; (2) consumer preference [19] [20] [21] ; and (3) economics and market trends [22] [23] .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source about premium as an image: [24] voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 03:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's a term used within the marketing industry.  It would be well served by a one- or two-paragraph section within the Beer article, outlining  a) that there's no agreed definition of what it actually means;  b) the beer industry generally, though by no means universally, considers it to be to with ABV (and there is disagreement as to what that ABV point is); and  c) others, especially marketers, ascribe other values to the term, though again, there is no agreement as to what those values might be.  That would also allay the article creator's fears about "not having links from 'Heineken' and 'Fosters' challenging the article's neutrality" (?) as a section heading can be used as a wikilink.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree with you if only the definition were at issue, but we have reliable sources discussing consumer trends and economics of the premium market as well.  The fact that a definition isn't agreed upon is not a reason to not write an article about something; indeed, that indicates that a topic requires more space to discuss, not an artificial two paragraph limit.  Those disagreements are precisely why NPOV requires giving due weight to different views.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For me, this remains a clear keep.  As others have pointed out, this term is dominant in the marketing industry, and the article goes on to cite several sources across fields that discuss the trend of premiumization in beer, including in Economics and Sociology...  I just did a quick Wikipedia search of "Premium Beer" and I'm seeing it referenced over 1,200 times.  Even more if I type in Premium Lager or Premium Ale.  It's clear to me that: (A) This topic is pervasive both colloquially and across industries, and at least meets the threshold of notability for an article.  To verify that, one can review the sources cited in the article, or perform a quick Google search.  (B) A topic having "no universal definition" isn't reason for it not to have an article, in fact, if a term is extremely popular and widespread on top of having an ambiguous definition, that to me is even more reason for it to have an article, that way users can effectively read to understand the nuance, and not be confused or receive a positive bias when they see it used.  (C) This topic is referenced some 1,000+ times across Wikipedia.  This final point is a confluence of A and B. The term isn't just pervasive in marketing -- it's pervasive on our platform itself.  The widespread use of this term across articles, in the absence of an article explaining what is means, given the positive connotation of the word premium represents a challenge to neutrality.  We should have an article that makes it clear "hey, premium beer is a term that has various meanings, here are the considerations" because otherwise 1,200+ articles are just calling some beers premium while others not in a way that misinforms a reader and says "hey, this is a premium beer, this one is not, and that's a fact." *Addressing "But premium beer has no universally agreed definition A term having "no universally agreed definition" is not a good reason for it to not have an article: that's just reason for any article that does exist, to appropriately address the nuances of its explanation. **Addressing "Just put it as a sub paragraph within beer** A term used over 1,200 times across Wikipedia, with all of the usage we've seen across industries, seems to merit more than just a sub paragraph in an existing article.This is the same reason we have a separate article for Craft Beer or Draft Beer - they are dominant topics and capture nuances that just Beer doesn't.  This remains a clear keep for me for the reasons outlined above.  Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 16:07, 02 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to bludgeon the process - I made my contribution above - but I am going to call out misinformation.  The term "premium beer" is used 85 times on en.wikipedia , not 500, or 1,000+, or (now) 1,200 times across Wikipedia, as has been claimed above.  And lastly, I don't think we need to say much more about premium beer except what's written here .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer: Please note that the above comment is from the article creator, who has already commented and ! voted in the above debate, on 15th January.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In Bastun's same spirit of not bludgeoning the process, want to call out that in his link he intentionally fenced the words around quotation marks, therefore it would exclude any articles that don't say exactly what he wrote.  Therefore this excludes mention of "premium import beer" "premium priced beer" "premium domestic beer" et al.  - which obviously all mean same thing.  Here's an unfenced link where you can see the >1,000+ #s I'm seeing.  Looks higher than 85 to me :) Link [25] The above link doesn't even include premium ale, premium lager, etc.  That's correct, I am the article creator-- but isn't that clear? I've signed all my messages with my name. Unsure point of calling that out: you are the original nominator for deletion, right? Finally, on the point of "bludgeoning the process" which describes advancing one's point through volume of comments --- feel free to count up my # of comments, then count up his :) Grateful for this stimulating discussion.  Hoping everyone has a great day and kudos to the closer for weighing up everyone's thoughts equally.  I believe we should take a uniform and objective approach to applying Wikipedia's goals of neutrality, and notability.  Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 19:07, 03 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course I included the search term in quotation marks; that's literally how you ensure you're only returning results with the actual search term, and how you exclude false positives, such as phrases like " premium-priced beers ", " non-premium lager ", " Part of the so-called premium sector ", or branded names such  as 333 Premium Export Beer .  And as of this comment, I will have made seven contributions to the page, at around 5.4kb, including the nomination.  You are on over a dozen contributions, at 11.3kb, including two ! votes.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think both of you have been contributing productively to this discussion.  Andrew's second ! vote and @ Bastun 's second comment both appear to be responsive to my !vote; it's not bludgeoning to note your agreement or disagreement with another editor. Regarding the two !votes, @ Andrewkazimi : per WP:AFDFORMAT , "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line."  I recommend keeping your original !vote bolded and un-bolding and striking the keep . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can do. I think you hit the nail on the head with my intention. I'm approaching this with attempts of being objective / just having a constructive conversation. Think we should all take that approach, as you particularly have been. Thank you! Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete - appears to have been created as part of a paid promotional campaign. WP:DENY - David Gerard ( talk ) 12:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you expand on that? The current article version doesn't look particularly promotional. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't correct. There is nothing promotional about an article about premium beer.... David took issue with another article of mine (a living biography) and then somehow came here to weigh in on a completely different topic. This is a bit of a frustrating aspect of the wikipedia community: we strive for objectivity, but in reality a lot the times decisions are made by senior editors throwing their weight around behind subjective decisions. Bastun is able to nominate the article for deletion becuase "no universal definition" of the term, when universal definitions are not a requisite of having an article, he then doubles down on the term only being used in marketing, and maintains his stance despite being shown examples of the term being cited outside of marketing. Mr. David Gerard flags the article as paid promotion, but doesn't expand on how/why. Much of the Wikipedia review process is kind of just senior editors forcing their opinions. I have deep respect for all who have contributed, and I encourage all to assess articles based on the actual content of the article... Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are now veering into personal attack territory. What I wrote is available in the nomination, above; don't try to put words in my mouth. Voorts , the current article doesn't look particularly promotional, but look at the history, including the recent addition of a "random" list of so-called "premium beers."  Compare to Beer#"Premium"_beers - is there really that much more to be said? I mean... WP:NOPAGE exists for a reason! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I believe there is more to write, as I noted above. Per SS , there's enough to write on this topic such that it should be summarized in the main beer article and a child article created here. The trend of "premiumization" is a real phenomenon that can have a neutral, encyclopedic article written about it. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:40, 6 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge