Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf

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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very highly promotional article on borderline notable company.As for notability , small chain, with references consisting only of press releases , or minor notices obviously based on press releases. As for promotionalism , list of all executives, list of all store locations, list of all coffee blends served, multiple photos of their shops, list of multiple local promotional events.

It's been here a while, but there's been recent active editing to keep up with the changes in executives, and add the promotional events. All of this is content for a web page, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major chain: 900 stores in 25 countries. [1] An important player in the coffee business, and inventor of the "ice blended". Here are business discussions in The New York Times [2] and Forbes [3][4] and examples of other coverage [5][6][7][8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-developed, has been here since 2005, has hundreds of edits, and 57 citations. With all the push that short articles need to be developed and expanded, the complaint seems to be that this article doesn't need as much content as it has. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have performed some copy editing to reduce promotional tone in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to easily meet WP:CORP. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:29, 25 February 2014 (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.