Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffe D’Amore

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 without prejudice to re-creation from independent reliable sources. —Cryptic 04:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caffe D’Amore[edit]

This article is written in a blatantly inappropriate advertising tone with a number of POV statements, and there is no indication that its subject, due to the lack of any reliable third party sources, meets WP:CORP. Admin declined speedy on the basis of an assertion of notability despite it being a G11 speedy. Erechtheus 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the admin mentioned above. I think the company is arguably notable although I also think the notability is marginal and seeing some citations to reliable sources would help. As for being spam, I think the tone and content could be improved but, IMHO, it is not as "blatantly inappropriate" as Erechtheus thinks. This is a judgment call. I think we should decide the notability question first. If it's notable, the tone and content can be fixed. If it's not notable, then who cares whether it's spam? --Richard 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I have extensively cleaned up the article to unspam it. It still needs third-party reliable sources, but the advert issue is (mostly) moot now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot attest to its notability (or not), but I wish to point out that the article in its current state, while nominally asserting it ("multi-million dollar", "60,000 square-foot", "around the world"), has no legitimate sourcing for that purpose, rather it is a ducky promovertisement. Here is a case where fixing it would probably take as long as rewriting it from scratch, as that is likely what would need to be done. So while usually I would want to propose to keep and fix, as this currently is a clear spam page (which are wikipeeves of mine), and deletion/proper recreation would be no harder than fixing, this seems a clear delete. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Update: after my cleanup, it seems a better path to keep and properly source. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC) keep, conditional on being properly sourced. clarified Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the proper course would be to keep only if the article is now properly sourced to comply with WP:CORP. While it is certainly written in appropriate tone due to your fine work, there is still a disturbing content issue that would need to be addressed. Erechtheus 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that makes perfect sense. I agree and will clarify my position accordingly.Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: the original author of the page said this about the page on its Talk: "This article is to share information about the rich history of the company." So the intent of the current article is beyond doubt. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Struck per my update. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. I don't really see a point leaving it with various content tags when any rewrite would begin with blanking what is already there. Someguy1221 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the writer of this article, there is no intension for this to be an advertisement. It is a historical account of this company. I studied other companies on wiki before writing this including Peets, Folgers, The Coffee Bean, The San Antonio winery, etc etc. It would seem my article is written in the same tone. If you feel differently about this, please help me fix it. I think a 100+ year old tradition that changed and help shape the hot beverage industry is worthy of its place on wiki.

I welcome your help and suggestions.

Dreambuildersco 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's WP:CORP--NightRider63 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Introducing the first flavored cappucino seems notable, though I'd like to see some 3rd party sources verifying that assertion. Cap'n Walker 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Claiming notability is one thing, but it's not being proven. The creating editor has had a little time now to find some independent sources that substantiate the claims and demonstrate notability, or at least assert to us that these sources are out there. If it doesn't change in the due course of the debate, delete it for failure of WP:V and WP:N. At least Baccyak4H's effort has dealt with the advertorial issue. Makes me ask "if advertising was not the intention, why write advertorial?" Adrian M. H. 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can supply a couple of reliable sources, just like we did for Mzoli's. Remember? Burntsauce 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim to notability lacks a reliable source so deletion is in order. It's not like there is a lot to recreate if sources are found later. Vegaswikian 05:38, 7 October 2007 (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.