Talk:Allagash Brewing Company

message: *FrozenPurpleCube has prosed that this article be deleted on 12 April 2007 at proposed deletion, per failing the tests included at this discussion for what criteria a brewery or related article should meet before having an article.
I believe this brewery to be one of the more notible brewing operations in the Northeast, if not the entire United States. Google, for instance, returns 34,000 hits for a search of "Allagash Brewing Company." It is true that Wikipedia:Notability (breweries) states that stand alone stub articles on breweries are not to be encouraged, but it also says "nor are they to be discouraged." Indeed, this is a unique brewery that in time will get its "full article," rather than the stub it's got now. I am deleting the proposed deletion in the hopes that more attention can be drawn to this subject, and also because it deserves a full article. Benzamin 15:00 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::The problem with that assertion is that you still haven't established notability.  Raw Google results are often not very useful, and in this case, where it's a company, there's a lot of directory sites and advertisements.  Thus I am unpersuaded that this brewery is actually notable.  I'll tag it with  for now, but if that isn't addressed, I will try AfD.  Sorry, but I just don't see how this brewery is different from any of the thousands of others out there.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just came back from a medium-large beer and wine outlet in Central Florida (i.e. a pretty long way away from Maine), and they had something like 4 or 5 different varieties of Allagash, in decent quantity, placed at eye level alon with the other major brands of Belgian-style ales.  Perhaps a fluke, but if not I'd definitely say that the company is notable.  This store didn't carry "thousands" of Belgian-style beers--it carried MAYBE half a dozen brands, Allagash was one of them and we're about as far away from Maine as possible while still remaining on the East Coast.  --Lode Runner 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2007 Proposed Deletion

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I'm planning to throw up a 'reads like an advertisement' tag momentarily, and if anyone has any feedback or thoughts that would be useful. Popped by to check on the year of incorporation, and discovered a lot of unfounded/uncited claims. I'm sure most of them are true, but the whole "recognized a void in the American brewing movement" statement is both unsupported and nearly impossible to verify from an encyclopedic standpoint. The whole thing needs some work from somebody who doesn't work for Allagash setting up the backbone of the article. Jacotto (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement, Citations

message: I am the brewmaster for Two Coast Brewing in LA and almost the entire article is just plain wrong.
First of all the grain bill does not comprise of "wheat in place of barley", but 50% pale barley malt and 50% raw (unmalted) wheat.
Next: "(a process known as the methode champenoise)". No, just no. When it comes to Champagne - maybe the most important part of the "methode" is shake and shake the bottles again and again in a special rig where the neck of the bottle is pointing down. This way, the yeast - after the conditioning sugar has turned into CO2 and carbonated and pressurized the bottle - will settle against the cork. The neck of the bottle is then frozen, the cork and the frozen yeast removed and a new cork is set before the ice blob can thaw and the pressure escapes. This leaves a completely clear - "polished" - beverage. In all bottle-conditioned beers, the yeast remains IN the bottle and gives the beer its characteristic cloudiness. In beer it is just simply called "bottle conditioning", that much was correct.
"Before the beer is bottled, a small amount of yeast and sugar is added and a second fermentation occurs".
No on two strikes. The yeast is already IN the beer and thus the bottle, as it is packed unfiltered. No, sugar is not added, but fresh wort from an unfermented batch.
"conditioning leaves a small amount of yeast in the bottle, creating what is known as a "living" beer." Yes, the yeast stays in, see above, but nobody in brewing calls it a 'living beer' because after a couple of weeks the yeast is as dead as a doornail. In fact, brewers have to take (processes to complicated to discuss here) to make sure that the yeast does not autolyse during the planned shelf-life of the product.47.151.154.112 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong technical statements in this article