Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Coffee

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. T. Canens (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Coffee[edit]

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

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ncorp fail. I saw a total of two sources in a search: the Vancouver Courrier and soemthing called Scout, a sort of web magazine. Not enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this is more than a run-of-the-WP:MILL local business with the usual routine local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. WP:MILL has this section for commercial establishments Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Commercial and you can clearly see that a chain such as this one will not fit into any of those categories listed. Ktin (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is modeled on the some of local coffee shops in the region (Pacific North West), as a part of the third wave coffee movement. While this is not an AfD for those specific local coffee shops, none of them have had issues proving WP:GNG for the same reason as this one. The key local coffee shops and roasters on whom this article has been modeled on are as below.

The article does have sources that are independent of this topic and are relevant. Also, special care has been taken to ensure that there is no WP:PROMO by retaining it to be a factual piece.

Yes, this is a local business, and hence will have local sources for references, but, WP:GNG emphasizes the need for a) independent sources b) reliable sources c) significant coverage more than a passing mention -- all of whom are met by this article. Ktin (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: Other articles do not matter, as has been explained elsewhere, so maybe stop pasting that list into every AfD? This particular article doesn't meet GNG with two sources. And GNG is not actually the goal her with a business, it's WP:NCORP, which says These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. So there need to be four or five articles with significant coverage. That might happen in another three or four years, but it does not seem to exist now. As stated at the other AFD, the theme of expanding the coverage of third-wave coffee roasters is not relevant here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I disagree. Both AfDs are very specific to the same theme, and the same premise holds on both cases. Ktin (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: The only thing that will save an article like this is adding more good, in-depth sources. Do that and you8 are golden. Administrators have closed hundreds or thousands of discussions like this, and WP:WAX arguments like the one you make above will just be ignored unless the other articles are very, very high quality. To quote WP:WAX, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." If you want to raise global consciousness on third-wave coffee places on the West Coast, in a neural and encyclopedic way, more power to you. But you cannot do it without good sourcing, so I would track those down if they exist. Saying "what about X article or article Y" will not generally help; it is good sources that will help. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of this article is also involved with a similar AfD discussion of an article which he has created in the first place. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/49th Parallel Coffee. -Hatchens (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination above. TheAnayalator (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP, no indepth sources found that indicate wikisignificance. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (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.