Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Coffee Works

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Like Valereee, I really hate this. I love coffeehouses, especially good ones. But those editors advocating Deleted have gone through dozens and dozens of references and found that they don't provide SIGCOV to meet NCORP. They have really gone beyond a simple review of this article to go deeply into every citation presented in the article or in the discussion and found most of them to be trivial. Their effort is not a reason to close this discussion as Delete but they have presented a case that isn't refuted by those wanting to Keep this article. Just as advice to content creators, it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete.

I wanted to consider an ATD but only one editor mentioned a redirect. One can still be created from this deleted page title. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Coffee Works

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Seattle Coffee Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really hate this. I don't want to AfD. But there is literally no evidence from the sources that this is a notable subject, and the article creator is literally forcing me here. There are 20 sources. I looked at the single one that is used more than once, thinking that must of course be something that would show notability. It does not. I started through the next. Nope. AB, why are you doing this? Why are you forcing other editors to do a source assessment for 20 sources in order to show that you didn't do what you were supposed to do, which is to find the THREE sources which support notability? Please, please just show me the three. Not twenty. THREE. Why won't you just do that? Why?

Ugh, templates. There's a source assessment at Talk:Seattle Coffee Works#Source assessment. As far as I can tell nothing supports notability. If someone else knows how to transfer that here for easy nav, please do. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are mentions of them [1] but I don't see any substantial coverage about them. One location was sold, so there's some coverage about that. The source assessment table mentioned has only about three entries then error messages. Based on that as well, it's a Delete. I feel your pain about deletions as well. Congrats on sticking around wiki for 16 years though Valereee ! Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The error messages are because I created a 20-row table then didn't fill in the bottom 17 rows after the first three showed no notability. Anyone else who wants to go spend hours checking these sources to see if there's some off chance one of them would support notability -- even though AB is not willing to tell us which ones to look at -- feel free to fill it in, go for it. Valereee (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and now we've got THIRTY FORTY-FOUR sources. @Another Believer, more is not better. Which three, AB? Instead of adding 10 more sources, just tell us: which three sources support notability? Why are you adding sources when what is needed is for you to tell us which sources support notability? Why not just tell us which sources instead of spending your time adding more sources that will muddy the waters even further and make it even more difficult for other editors to assess? Valereee (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we've asked for the three best sources, we'll debate what we have here. If it gets harder to pick which ones are good, well, that's their issue. We'll do our assessment with what we see and what's presented to us. I'm not rewriting the article for them either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, the problem is that many people will drive by, see 44 sources, see that 25 of them have been added recently, not bother to check any of the sources, and assume there's been improvements made. It's all refbombing, but as you can see from @Drmies' !vote below, it confuses people as to what they're actually looking at. No one wants to look at thirty sources, and the people who think AB is being persecuted simply will not agree to discuss which sources are the ones that support notability. AB is experienced and well-liked enough that people assume he's also well-intentioned, so the refbombing strategy often works for him. AB thinks of himself as well-intentioned, too, so cognitive dissonance prevents him from being able to accept that what he's doing isn't actually of benefit to the project, even when other well-intentioned people object. It's all very circular. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nominator is making up their own qualifications for articles and pretending they're part of our written rules. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ɱ, can you point me at the three sources that best support notability? Valereee (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'not playing your games. As seen before, no matter how many or how good of sources we include, you're always going to make up something to negate it, like "too local a source" or "too few sentences" or some other b.s. that isn't codified whatsoever in our policies and guidelines. ɱ (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, it's not numbers. You're correct, no matter how many sources, it's not good enough. We need good sources, and yes, they need to be not all local/industry niche. Three will do. Valereee (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote again. ɱ (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this "industry" bullshit is crazy. Where are stock movements reported? WSJ. Where is NY metro news reported? NYT. Where is restaurant news reported? Eater, etc. This is almost as bullshit as the people who said a volunteer who works in foodservice can't edit restaurant articles. And again, It's Your Own Made-Up Standard. Fuck that. ɱ (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MJ, it's not that Eater can't be used. It's that Eater Seattle is still local and can't be used to support a claim of notability if all the other sources are also local. And of course a volunteer who works in foodservice can edit restaurant articles. They just need to keep in mind that what may look very important from inside the industry to someone in a certain area may not look notable from outside that industry and area. As someone inside the industry, you must know how much local coverage is given to basically every new opening in an area. Not all of them become notable. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you just said industry/niche sources aren't applicable in proving notability? You can't move your goalposts back and forth on a whim. And like I said, this idea of all local sources being tossed out in deletion discussions is appalling and completely contrary to our policies and guidelines. There's a reason nobody here has linked to any in their rationales. It passes them. ɱ (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear.
They can be used to fill in the article. But if there are no sigcov sources outside the local area/outside industry niche publications, we haven't proved notability. We shouldn't have an article in the first place. I could literally create 150 articles for Cincinnati restaurants tomorrow if I could use nothing more than the Cincinnati Enquirer, City Beat, Cincinnati Magazine, the Cincinnati Business Courier, plus their own little industry niche publications like Pizza Today or whatever. That coverage does not support a claim of notability. If a restaurant in Cincinnati is notable, media from outside the local area and/or outside the industry will cover it. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from using foul language here, we're debating the merits of the article, it's frustrating, but we treat one another as equals here. If you're here to denigrate others, wikipedia isn't the place for you. If it continues, you can and likely will get banned. Oaktree b (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can use all the foul language I want. The civility policy is about not being uncivil to others. I can still say fuck that idea, I'm not saying fuck you. ɱ (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I want to see is that a coffee shop in Seattle is discussed in LA or Chicago or wherever. If it is, it's probably notable. If it's literally not discussed anywhere else, it probably isn't. Valereee (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, it sounds like you're rejecting the entire notability standard? I mean, I get it, but that's our standard. Valereee (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Again, nominator is making up their own qualifications for articles and pretending they're part of our written rules. ɱ (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you can present which three sources you feel qualify as reliable sources [2] as explained there. They need to be neutral point of view, extensive coverage of the subject. This isn't a negotiation, we look at what we have and offer our opinions. If that's an issue, maybe wikipedia isn't for you; we're here to collaborate and we have to respect the process, or this thing falls apart. Every article that shows up for debate doesn't get deleted, but there is work to be done. I'm not the nominator and have no interest in keeping or deleting the article, I'm here to review what information is presented to us. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is only partially referencing policies and guidelines, you're also adding your own made-up ideas. Do any of the cited sources fail
WP:RS? And thanks for being so patronizing/condescending, definitely warranted here. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've done many articles at AfD, that's how it runs here. Reliable sources must also be lengthy, xyz thing in Seattle isn't enough for sourcing. Most of what's given is trivial mentions. I wish I was making this stuff up, it's policy here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to see the forest for the trees here, as is typical with these articles. There is so much fluff, so much material from local newspapers and sources (and that kind of coverage is always positive--so calling it promotional is valid) that it's hard to see which sources aren't just local things and actually discuss the subject in some depth and with some objectivity. [time passes] No, I don't see them. Worse than the lack of notability is the promotional, non-neutral tone of these articles, but that's another problem. Weak delete. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per GNG. There's plenty of coverage in reputable publications documenting the company's operational history, retail locations, reception, etc. The entry should be expanded, not deleted. This is yet another restaurant article I've started (I think we're up to 25 or so?) flagged for deletion recently. Ever since the Daily Dozen fiasco, a handful of editors have been hounding me. All of the articles have been kept; none have been deleted. I've "literally forced" Valereee to jump to AfD mere minutes after not answering their questions across multiple article talk pages? Give me a freakin' break. I'm tired of certain editors not assuming good faith and treating me like I have no clue what I'm doing. Also, I don't understand why certain editors feel a need to follow me around and flag things I've worked on, like some crusade to rescue Wikipedia from the evil restaurant entries. I don't expect to change Valereee's mind about anything, and I do not appreciate having to jump through all of their hoops over and over and over. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think people think you are acting in bad faith, I think it is more just two different ideas of what wikipedia is for. I think it is kinda silly to want to delete this but not also be for deleting all the wikipedia pages for like pubs of london or whatever. Keep. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Valereee or anyone else who thinks this should be deleted. Is it more likely that "the best coffee shop" in the state with the city synonymous with coffee, i.e. Seattle, is notable or non-notable? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so long as we have sources about it, I can be the dinkiest hole in the wall place with terrible coffee. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not addressing my question. I will restate. We have two examples – Thrillist and Eat This, Not That – that call this thing the best example of X in a city known globally for its connoisseurship of X. Is that likely to be notable, or non notable? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri, I'm inclined for restaurants to at least consider such coverage, especially if it's significant (although in this case it's a bit synthy unless the sources themselves are pointing out that this is in a city known for its coffee). Being on multiple best-of lists usually makes me start a userspace draft, which I add to as I wait for three instances of significant coverage. I personally wouldn't move to article space on the strength of those two sources, but I guess I'd accept the Thrillist 8 best, as it does seem to have been written by someone who actually visited the shops in question and it represents coverage that isn't simply local. I wish it were several paragraphs instead of one, but if there were really good sigcov elsewhere, that might get it over the hump for me.
But are these mentions an indicator the restaurant is or is likely to soon become notable? Yes, I think so. Is it enough right now? I'd like to see actual significant coverage, not just a short paragraph or an appearance on a list of 50. What I'd really like to see is someone writing about their tour of Seattle coffee shops calling out Seattle Coffee Works with a several-para mention in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "best coffee shop" in the state, or in a city, or anything like that. That superlative is, shall we say, widely claimed. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources are almost all reviews of only a paragraph or less. I don't see anything that meets the GNG or NCORP. JMWt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Way to focus on the short reviews and disregard others focused on operational history. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AB, if you'd literally just point out to us the lengthy ones that are focussed on operational history? Why are you objecting to people disregarding sources you believe provide support for notability when you've given us 44 sources and won't tell us which ones to look at? Valereee (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a local brand with 4 shops. How much 'operational history' can there be? JMWt (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over a decade's worth. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lots of local newspapers and brief mentions, but I don't see two sources that meet
    WP:CORPDEPTH). I disagree with Mj that these requirements are bullshit or made up; they're the applicable notability guideline. And @AB: if you're going to make an article like this every day, prepare for an AFD every day. If you don't have two NCORP sources, don't put an NCORP article in mainspace. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yup, I'm prepared. Unfortunately, I'm used to the hounding and deletion nominations at this point, even though I've been working to promote previously (AfD)-nominated entries to GA status (Bailey's Taproom, Bluehour, Bit House Saloon, etc). Some editors just keep targeting me and my work even though the articles are almost always being kept. Sure would be refreshing if editors offered to collaborate and improve content, instead of trying to tear down entries which have a place at Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it doesn't have two NCORP sources, it doesn't have a place at Wikipedia, and it's a proper target for deletion. Levivich (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying. Articles keep getting nominated for deletion and then kept, which to me suggests maybe some editors are nominating indiscriminately and/or misusing acronyms. (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked to see how many were nom'd and how many of those were kept, but of the three you linked, two ended in no consensus, and none were by the same nom as this one. You don't have to prove it to me, but I foresee eventually there will be either a string of keeps by a single nominator (who will be tbanned) or a string of deletes, in which case you'll be tbanned. Either outcome would suck. I'll say this: in those three you linked, I can glance at the ref list and see AUD without even checking for depth. I don't see AUD in anything in the ref list of this article though. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know why I'd be topic-banned when I'm promoting entries to Good article status, but ok! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the same thing this guy said. Levivich (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what else to say. A handful of editors keep nominating articles for deletion, even sometimes in retaliatory ways (I make progress in one place, so my 'reward' is immediate tagging elsewhere). The articles are generally being kept. Since then, I've worked to promote several of them to Good status even when editors were actively trying to interfere with the nomination. I don't understand why I would be topic-banned for improving/promoting content which editors have elected to keep via consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to merging to
    WP:DUE for inclusion in an article about coffee shops in Seattle. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This article is now
    bombarded with 82 references, and the deluge of trivial coverage as well as the inability of this discussion to identify significant coverage of the company itself seems to weigh against a merge. Also, the Coffee in Seattle article mostly focuses on blue-linked companies, and only namechecks companies without articles, so there does not appear to be much to merge within the current structure of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Finally, I found the thing I asked for fifteen billion times, and no one seemed to want to provide; the actual regional-source-for-notability guideline, from
    WP:AUD:

    The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

    That's a pretty clear indication that solely local coverage is not enough, and it's pretty clear to me that the coverage from the Seattle Times is the publication acting in its role as a local paper of record. Furthermore, this is what NCORP has to say about trade publications:

    Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.

    And "best-of" lists are mentioned in NCORP as "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement". I don't know why it was so difficult to get that from all the !delete voters on this page who swore up and down that they're a part of the notability guidelines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    FWIW, The Oregonian is generally treated as regional. That doesn't actually mean coverage only in TO is sufficient. For me, if I see one sigcov of a Seattle restaurant in the LA Times, one in the Seattle Times, and one in the Oregonian, I'd probably lean toward accepting at AfC. If it's only The Oregonian and local Seattle media, I wouldn't. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand – if it's a regional source, and the guideline says that sigcov in regional sources is sufficient, why isn't the regional source sufficient? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me this editor is changing their standards as more sources are revealed - Seattle Times is a relatively major paper - from Wikipedia: "The Seattle Times is a daily newspaper serving Seattle, Washington, United States. It was founded in 1891 and has been owned by the Blethen family since 1896. The Seattle Times has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Washington state and the Pacific Northwest region." - I believe there are multiple cites from this regional source. How is an oregonian paper going to comment on a Seattle coffee shop?! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty reasonable to say that, in this case, The Seattle Times is acting in its capacity as a local source, not a regional one. But right now, I'm asking Valereee about how she sees regional sourcing in terms of notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    tlc, ugh, Portland. Typing faster than my brain works.
    In general regional coverage of a restaurant that is outside that regional media's primary audience is fairly convincing to me. So for the NYT, while Buffalo is in its region, actual significant coverage of a Buffalo restaurant is something I'd find reasonably supporting notability, more so than say the Buffalo News. Of a restaurant in Cleveland, though, not even a question. Sigcov supports notability. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so we're saying basically the same thing – The Seattle Times is a publication with regional reach, but these sources are best treated as local due to the scope and focus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would coverage of the restaurant by Bizarre Foods America count as national coverage? I guess that gets into reliability issues. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a few more sources on the talk page re: Zimmern. User:Oaktree b might be interested in TV coverage, based on some previous AfD discussions lately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LegalSmeagolian: Yes, but it would be disqualified as a niche, non-leading trade publication. I think what NCORP is trying to get across is that someone has to care who wouldn't normally have a reason to. Yeah, an existing coffee shop is gonna get coverage being a coffee shop in Seattle (from people who relentlessly cover coffee shops or Seattle), so NCORP sets the bar a bit higher than that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone has to care who wouldn't normally is exactly right: in this case, we need at least two independent RSes who don't routinely cover Seattle coffee shops. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet CORP; most mentions are trivial. Does not appear to have won any Michelin stars or Zagat reviews, is simply a business going about their daily routine, not unlike any other coffee chain. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, the wall of text above was getting too long to notice. I've stricken my !vote, but the point still stands. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coffee Culture" Wickens, Stephen.  Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 04 Feb 2010: T.1. – a coffee tourism specialist (yes, that's a thing) points out this entity specifically to represent Seattle's coffee culture
  • "A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents" Braganza, Chantal.  Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 29 Dec 2009: B.3. – describes the company as the target of business intel gathering from Starbucks, due to its excellence
  • "Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience. The contrast of the lush parks, sparkling water and gleaming skyscrapers offers even the most seasoned traveler the chance to enjoy big-city living with an outdoorsy edge." Sarah Dettmer Great Falls Tribune via Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]. 12 Mar 2017: P.2. – listed as a destination coffee shops for tourists
And just to go above and beyond, CNN actually described this as one of the "best coffee in the world" places; one of just three listed for Seattle (they didn't bother with any other US cities):
  • "It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world" Wallace, Elizabeth; Reid, Sarah.  CNN Wire Service; Atlanta [Atlanta]. 01 Oct 2019.
For me this is sufficient for a "keep" especially when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered, on top of other local sources not listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But
WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage
lists as examples brief or passing mentions, such as: ... in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, as an example of a type of company or product being discussed and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. These four examples you give are literally brief mentions, as an example of a type of company being discussed, as a story source, and in a "best of" list:
  • Toronto Star 2009: A week before the opening of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, the Seattle Times reported that owners of at least two independent shops, Seattle Coffee Works and Victrola Coffee Roasters, spotted Starbucks' employees on research trips lingering in their stores.
  • Toronto Star 2010: One morning at Seattle Coffee Works, near the market, upon learning that a Canadian was present, a group of sports fans wanted to know about the chances NHL hockey might replace the departed NBA team.
  • AZ Republic 2017: Best coffee: Resist the urge to walk into a Starbucks. Seattle has several other incredible coffee shops including Seattle Coffee Works, Craftworks Coffee and Seattle Meowtropolitan — the city’s only cat café.
  • CNN 2019: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks.
  • Also CNN 2017: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks. (yes, CNN recycles its own copy)
  • There's also a CNN 2010, but it's just a quote: But small coffee shop owner Sebastian Simsch says it's getting the small details right that's tricky, especially for a company like Starbucks that thinks on a global scale. At the one location of his store Seattle Coffee Works, Simsch roasts his own coffee, chats with customers and picks out furniture that he admits resembles a mismatched living room set.
These are exactly what
WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage lists as not meeting NCORP. If these are representative three sources I found, then I don't think you've found any NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Coffee Culture"
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    .
  • "A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents"
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    .
  • "Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience."
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    .
  • "It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world"
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    .
One of the issues with building an article with trivial mentions such as the examples above is that it then appears to be an
WP:NOTADVERT. Beccaynr (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete under
    WP:ORGIND failures (refs 1–2, 5, 9, 12, 15–16, 24, 26–27, 30, 33–35, 36, 42, 45–46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 63, 78, 80–82) do not count. "Best of" lists and other listicles (refs 3, 12, 15–16, 46, 61, 67–82) do not count. Non-SIGCOV mentions (refs 4, 6–8, 10, 22, 25–26, 39, 43, 62, 64–66) do not count. Local publications (refs 9, 12–16, 19, 22–23, 26–27, 30–36, 41–42, 45–46, 48–53, 55–56, 58–59, 63) do not count. Being mentioned as a supplementary example in stories about other things (refs 13, 18, 21–23, 28–29, 37–38, 40) does not count. Sources not reliable for things other than their opinion (refs 17, 19, 31) do not count. Inaccessible references (refs 20, 44, 57) could not be evaluated. Unless someone shows SIGCOV in 'em, I say nay. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also, fully agree with Beccaynr's points on SIGCOV and NCORP. Well-put. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see numerous book references for Seattle Coffee Works, and also news articles. The article is well written with images, and NTEMP applies to this now closed business. Our policy is to find ATD or a way to Preserve. Deletion of a well written article about a notable business does not serve the project's goals. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I missing? The article you've linked to is, for all intents and purposes, a mere mention-in-passing with absolutely zero information about the company, just a small quote from the owner of Seattle Coffee Works near Pike Place Market. It is neither significant nor in-depth. If you're putting forward sources like this in order to establish notability, you're hurting your case, not helping.
    HighKing++ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't fall for that deletion booby trap:
WP:N which is our actual guideline, There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. theleekycauldron. We have a preponderance of evidence here in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
How about WP:ONE? Levivich (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The
company personnel talking about the company is not enough to support encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In this case, what is really notable is a lack of good faith engagement by the Keep !voters when asked to simply point to two or three sources that in their opinion meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Not many answered, instead calling it a "trap" which is nonsense. One Keep !voter, Bri, responded and provided what they believed were good sources. But Beccanyr correctly pointed out that none meets the criteria. Also, part of Bri's closing argument to justify their !vote Keep was when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered - but this fails
HighKing++ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seattle_Coffee_Works&oldid=1139226219"