Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt Spring 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 keep. Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Spring Coffee[edit]

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

A huge puffery about an non-notable business. - Altenmann >t 10:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. (What a horrible article).TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article includes substantial content reporting criticism as well as positive material about the subject, and it is sourced to a wide variety of reliable sources--not all of them from the Salt Spring/Vancouver area, either. It might ultimately be too local a business to sustain a Wikipedia article, but not because of puffery or lack of sourcing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you remove PR puffery and "criticism" about bad smell (very encyclopedic info, right?), nothing is left of the article. I don't really care, but this is exactly the case of PR push in wikipedia we will never have enough hands to fend off. - Altenmann >t 18:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree one non-hyperbolic 150% with the above.TheLongTone (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, independent coverage in a number of reliable sources including The Globe and Mail, The Georgia Straight and The Vancouver Sun. Probably just barely enough to kick it over the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – The puffery can be edited away, but this is company is notable, with coverage as noted by Lankiveil, also in the Times Colonist ("Salt Spring Coffee and the growth cult" by Diane McNally. Times Colonist [Victoria, B.C] 20 June 2010: D3; and "The sad saga of Salt Spring Coffee" by Kay Maclean. Times Colonist [Victoria, B.C] 06 June 2010: A18) and there is additional national-level coverage in The Globe and Mail ("Voted off the island? Salt Spring coffee company contemplates next move" by Shannon Moneo. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 08 Aug 2009: S2; and "You want cream, sugar or carbon credits with that?" by Rebecca Lindell. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 30 June 2010: A7). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to say Keep or WP:TNT. Worst article I think I've seen. But passes the GNG Neonchameleon (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. I listed this for deletion back in March 2010 (see the edit comments prior to that one, three or four of them) but back then there was nowhere near as much press copy on it and it was being heavily edited and worked on by a blatantly COI SPA who was intent on WP:OWNing it. For better or worse, it's now been in the news, and though (like most company articles) a sort of advertising, it's beyond the control of their ad firm now and has a certain notability. If other coffee rival coffee chains are here, I can't see why this one can't be (I know there's that guideline/principle about "because this exists, doesn't mean this can). But there's a certain kind of meat here now. So keep it, there's way more blatant spam and coi out there than this, and so much OR and SYNTH it makes me choke at times.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 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.