Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unseen Bean

Add links
From 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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unseen Bean

[edit]
The Unseen Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pulled from the db-spam deletion queue. A difficult case that could use some discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The central issue here ought to be whether the subject meets the standard for significant news coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Let's look at those cited by the article and a few by AfD commenters here. The Armstrong tweets are a distraction and don't deserve serious treatment; let's ignore them. The Reuters blog coverage was a human interest piece tangential to their reportage on the DNC. (Had this seen broader exposure beyond a reporter's blog, it might meet the benchmark.) The Ashmore piece appears in a Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired newsletter; its target is a narrow, special-interest audience. And, not to belabor this, but the Yelp pieces are predominantly reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece. Neither significance nor depth of news coverage are established; the article fails WP:COMPANY. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I do not think regarding reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece is a good reason to disregard references. I think regarding reviews with an opinion of their content as to what is notable, may lead to a pick and chose attitude, an opinion of the wiki editors as to what they think is important, regardless of the amount of coverage. I think what is meant by "Trivial or incidental" at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria refers to the amount of coverage, not the quality content of this the coverage. i.e. I think the following are trivial and incidental:[1][2][3] etc.. While the references may not be in depth coverage, multiple independent sources can be cited to establish notability. See also CU Bboulder TV, Denver Post (Denver, CO), Rocky Mountain News, Daily Camera, are in my view multiple independent sources establishing notability. Also I think blind and visually impaired are perhaps a niche audience, but they still count, and their independent publications can count as a good source. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC). Post Scriptum: the other news reference I found is Fox, but is not a valid reference as it is a press release. I agree with the Armstrong reference being no such thing. what next? The restaurant he has lunch in? The people he meets? Ludicrous. Amusingly, perhaps this is an unusual case of WP:NOTINHERITED.[reply]

Information. Searching Lexis-Nexis Academic for the phrase "unseen bean" for the last 10 years within Major US and World Publications, News Wire Services, TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts, Company, and SEC Filings returns 12 hits.

  • 1 hit: The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle. Blind businessman says his product, not his disability, attracts customers. 683 words. Only substantive article found.
  • 1 hit: Company profile from Netvention (a directory entry)
  • 1 hit: Global Broadcast Database indicates brief mention of "Unseen Bean" on local ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
  • 2 hits: Market Wire, August 14, 2008 mentions "Unseen Bean Coffee Company" supplying coffee in the blogger tent at the Democratic National Convention.
  • 5 "false drops" (mostly mentions of "unseen Bean" referring to unseen episodes of "Mr. Bean."

Summary: In 10 years, only one piece specifically about the company and the individual running it. Other entries are only mentions (no details), directory entry, or false drops (search terms satisfied, but not about subject -Quartermaster (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • note: list of refrences so far:
Sources
  1. Reuters Blogs - BUT written by Reuters Staff
  2. article by Alice Ashmore, ANCHORA writer
  3. CU Bboulder TV.
  4. Denver Post (Denver, CO)
  5. Rocky Mountain News
  6. Daily Camera
  7. The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle
  8. ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
  9. mention in Market Wire, August 14, 2008.

other point, I do not think spam is a good reason to delete. Article seems notable, needs a clean up, not deletion. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references were not on the article at the time I added a delete notice vote. Thanks for the save. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I just added them now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:37, 3 April 2009 (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/The_Unseen_Bean&oldid=1166567627"