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. Like Valereee, I really hate this. I love coffeehouses, especially good ones. But those editors advocating Deleted have gone through dozens and dozens of references and found that they don't provide SIGCOV to meet NCORP. They have really gone beyond a simple review of this article to go deeply into every citation presented in the article or in the discussion and found most of them to be trivial. Their effort is not a reason to close this discussion as Delete but they have presented a case that isn't refuted by those wanting to Keep this article. Just as advice to content creators, it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete.

I wanted to consider an ATD but only one editor mentioned a redirect. One can still be created from this deleted page title. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Coffee Works

[edit]

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

Seattle Coffee Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really hate this. I don't want to AfD. But there is literally no evidence from the sources that this is a notable subject, and the article creator is literally forcing me here. There are 20 sources. I looked at the single one that is used more than once, thinking that must of course be something that would show notability. It does not. I started through the next. Nope. AB, why are you doing this? Why are you forcing other editors to do a source assessment for 20 sources in order to show that you didn't do what you were supposed to do, which is to find the THREE sources which support notability? Please, please just show me the three. Not twenty. THREE. Why won't you just do that? Why?

Ugh, templates. There's a source assessment at Talk:Seattle Coffee Works#Source assessment. As far as I can tell nothing supports notability. If someone else knows how to transfer that here for easy nav, please do. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are mentions of them [1] but I don't see any substantial coverage about them. One location was sold, so there's some coverage about that. The source assessment table mentioned has only about three entries then error messages. Based on that as well, it's a Delete. I feel your pain about deletions as well. Congrats on sticking around wiki for 16 years though Valereee ! Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The error messages are because I created a 20-row table then didn't fill in the bottom 17 rows after the first three showed no notability. Anyone else who wants to go spend hours checking these sources to see if there's some off chance one of them would support notability -- even though AB is not willing to tell us which ones to look at -- feel free to fill it in, go for it. Valereee (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and now we've got THIRTY FORTY-FOUR sources. @Another Believer, more is not better. Which three, AB? Instead of adding 10 more sources, just tell us: which three sources support notability? Why are you adding sources when what is needed is for you to tell us which sources support notability? Why not just tell us which sources instead of spending your time adding more sources that will muddy the waters even further and make it even more difficult for other editors to assess? Valereee (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we've asked for the three best sources, we'll debate what we have here. If it gets harder to pick which ones are good, well, that's their issue. We'll do our assessment with what we see and what's presented to us. I'm not rewriting the article for them either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, the problem is that many people will drive by, see 44 sources, see that 25 of them have been added recently, not bother to check any of the sources, and assume there's been improvements made. It's all refbombing, but as you can see from @Drmies' !vote below, it confuses people as to what they're actually looking at. No one wants to look at thirty sources, and the people who think AB is being persecuted simply will not agree to discuss which sources are the ones that support notability. AB is experienced and well-liked enough that people assume he's also well-intentioned, so the refbombing strategy often works for him. AB thinks of himself as well-intentioned, too, so cognitive dissonance prevents him from being able to accept that what he's doing isn't actually of benefit to the project, even when other well-intentioned people object. It's all very circular. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'not playing your games. As seen before, no matter how many or how good of sources we include, you're always going to make up something to negate it, like "too local a source" or "too few sentences" or some other b.s. that isn't codified whatsoever in our policies and guidelines. ɱ (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, it's not numbers. You're correct, no matter how many sources, it's not good enough. We need good sources, and yes, they need to be not all local/industry niche. Three will do. Valereee (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote again. ɱ (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this "industry" bullshit is crazy. Where are stock movements reported? WSJ. Where is NY metro news reported? NYT. Where is restaurant news reported? Eater, etc. This is almost as bullshit as the people who said a volunteer who works in foodservice can't edit restaurant articles. And again, It's Your Own Made-Up Standard. Fuck that. ɱ (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MJ, it's not that Eater can't be used. It's that Eater Seattle is still local and can't be used to support a claim of notability if all the other sources are also local. And of course a volunteer who works in foodservice can edit restaurant articles. They just need to keep in mind that what may look very important from inside the industry to someone in a certain area may not look notable from outside that industry and area. As someone inside the industry, you must know how much local coverage is given to basically every new opening in an area. Not all of them become notable. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you just said industry/niche sources aren't applicable in proving notability? You can't move your goalposts back and forth on a whim. And like I said, this idea of all local sources being tossed out in deletion discussions is appalling and completely contrary to our policies and guidelines. There's a reason nobody here has linked to any in their rationales. It passes them. ɱ (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear.
They can be used to fill in the article. But if there are no sigcov sources outside the local area/outside industry niche publications, we haven't proved notability. We shouldn't have an article in the first place. I could literally create 150 articles for Cincinnati restaurants tomorrow if I could use nothing more than the Cincinnati Enquirer, City Beat, Cincinnati Magazine, the Cincinnati Business Courier, plus their own little industry niche publications like Pizza Today or whatever. That coverage does not support a claim of notability. If a restaurant in Cincinnati is notable, media from outside the local area and/or outside the industry will cover it. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can use all the foul language I want. The civility policy is about not being uncivil to others. I can still say fuck that idea, I'm not saying fuck you. ɱ (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I want to see is that a coffee shop in Seattle is discussed in LA or Chicago or wherever. If it is, it's probably notable. If it's literally not discussed anywhere else, it probably isn't. Valereee (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, it sounds like you're rejecting the entire notability standard? I mean, I get it, but that's our standard. Valereee (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Again, nominator is making up their own qualifications for articles and pretending they're part of our written rules. ɱ (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you can present which three sources you feel qualify as reliable sources [2] as explained there. They need to be neutral point of view, extensive coverage of the subject. This isn't a negotiation, we look at what we have and offer our opinions. If that's an issue, maybe wikipedia isn't for you; we're here to collaborate and we have to respect the process, or this thing falls apart. Every article that shows up for debate doesn't get deleted, but there is work to be done. I'm not the nominator and have no interest in keeping or deleting the article, I'm here to review what information is presented to us. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is only partially referencing policies and guidelines, you're also adding your own made-up ideas. Do any of the cited sources fail WP:RS? And thanks for being so patronizing/condescending, definitely warranted here. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done many articles at AfD, that's how it runs here. Reliable sources must also be lengthy, xyz thing in Seattle isn't enough for sourcing. Most of what's given is trivial mentions. I wish I was making this stuff up, it's policy here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not addressing my question. I will restate. We have two examples – Thrillist and Eat This, Not That – that call this thing the best example of X in a city known globally for its connoisseurship of X. Is that likely to be notable, or non notable? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri, I'm inclined for restaurants to at least consider such coverage, especially if it's significant (although in this case it's a bit synthy unless the sources themselves are pointing out that this is in a city known for its coffee). Being on multiple best-of lists usually makes me start a userspace draft, which I add to as I wait for three instances of significant coverage. I personally wouldn't move to article space on the strength of those two sources, but I guess I'd accept the Thrillist 8 best, as it does seem to have been written by someone who actually visited the shops in question and it represents coverage that isn't simply local. I wish it were several paragraphs instead of one, but if there were really good sigcov elsewhere, that might get it over the hump for me.
But are these mentions an indicator the restaurant is or is likely to soon become notable? Yes, I think so. Is it enough right now? I'd like to see actual significant coverage, not just a short paragraph or an appearance on a list of 50. What I'd really like to see is someone writing about their tour of Seattle coffee shops calling out Seattle Coffee Works with a several-para mention in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "best coffee shop" in the state, or in a city, or anything like that. That superlative is, shall we say, widely claimed. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a local brand with 4 shops. How much 'operational history' can there be? JMWt (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over a decade's worth. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, the wall of text above was getting too long to notice. I've stricken my !vote, but the point still stands. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coffee Culture" Wickens, Stephen.  Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 04 Feb 2010: T.1. – a coffee tourism specialist (yes, that's a thing) points out this entity specifically to represent Seattle's coffee culture
  • "A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents" Braganza, Chantal.  Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 29 Dec 2009: B.3. – describes the company as the target of business intel gathering from Starbucks, due to its excellence
  • "Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience. The contrast of the lush parks, sparkling water and gleaming skyscrapers offers even the most seasoned traveler the chance to enjoy big-city living with an outdoorsy edge." Sarah Dettmer Great Falls Tribune via Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]. 12 Mar 2017: P.2. – listed as a destination coffee shops for tourists
And just to go above and beyond, CNN actually described this as one of the "best coffee in the world" places; one of just three listed for Seattle (they didn't bother with any other US cities):
  • "It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world" Wallace, Elizabeth; Reid, Sarah.  CNN Wire Service; Atlanta [Atlanta]. 01 Oct 2019.
For me this is sufficient for a "keep" especially when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered, on top of other local sources not listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage lists as examples brief or passing mentions, such as: ... in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, as an example of a type of company or product being discussed and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. These four examples you give are literally brief mentions, as an example of a type of company being discussed, as a story source, and in a "best of" list:
  • Toronto Star 2009: A week before the opening of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, the Seattle Times reported that owners of at least two independent shops, Seattle Coffee Works and Victrola Coffee Roasters, spotted Starbucks' employees on research trips lingering in their stores.
  • Toronto Star 2010: One morning at Seattle Coffee Works, near the market, upon learning that a Canadian was present, a group of sports fans wanted to know about the chances NHL hockey might replace the departed NBA team.
  • AZ Republic 2017: Best coffee: Resist the urge to walk into a Starbucks. Seattle has several other incredible coffee shops including Seattle Coffee Works, Craftworks Coffee and Seattle Meowtropolitan — the city’s only cat café.
  • CNN 2019: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks.
  • Also CNN 2017: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks. (yes, CNN recycles its own copy)
  • There's also a CNN 2010, but it's just a quote: But small coffee shop owner Sebastian Simsch says it's getting the small details right that's tricky, especially for a company like Starbucks that thinks on a global scale. At the one location of his store Seattle Coffee Works, Simsch roasts his own coffee, chats with customers and picks out furniture that he admits resembles a mismatched living room set.
These are exactly what WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage lists as not meeting NCORP. If these are representative three sources I found, then I don't think you've found any NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coffee Culture" ProQuest 439633759 is not significant coverage of the company itself - it begins with quotes from Jackie McCallum at Caffe L'Arte, then comments on Pike Public Market as a tourist attraction, the Sky City restaurant, Oliver's at the Mayflower Hotel, the Cheese Cellar, Beecher's, and The Chocolate Box, before "One morning at Seattle Coffee Works, near the market, upon learning that a Canadian was present, a group of sports fans wanted to know about the chances NHL hockey might replace the departed NBA team." Then it moves on to Tully's, "a tale about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz", "Starbucks has since bought the fledgling Clover operation", quotes from a tour guide for Savor Seattle, including "she says she's certain there are lots of new ideas and ventures in the works, pointing to Seattle Coffee Works, a collaboration of local roasters, and to small independent shops, which are everywhere throughout Seattle's up-and-coming neighbourhoods." This is not WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • "A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents" ProQuest 439635708 is also not significant coverage of the company itself - this source is about Starbucks, and only briefly mentions the company: "A week before the opening of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, the Seattle Times reported that owners of at least two independent shops, Seattle Coffee Works and Victrola Coffee Roasters, spotted Starbucks' employees on research trips lingering in their stores." Also not WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • "Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience." ProQuest 1992496047 - this is also not significant coverage of the company itself - it is a 'best of' list, and the company is only mentioned: "Best Coffee: Resist the urge to walk into a Starbucks. Seattle has many other incredible coffee shops, including Seattle Coffee Works, Craftworks Coffee and Seattle Meowtropolitan — the city's only cat café." This is not WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • "It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world" ProQuest 2299410862 is similarly trivial coverage that does not support notability - this is a collection of brief 'best of' listings, i.e. "Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks." Also not WP:CORPDEPTH.
One of the issues with building an article with trivial mentions such as the examples above is that it then appears to be an advertisement and warrants exclusion per WP:N and WP:NOTADVERT. Beccaynr (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I missing? The article you've linked to is, for all intents and purposes, a mere mention-in-passing with absolutely zero information about the company, just a small quote from the owner of Seattle Coffee Works near Pike Place Market. It is neither significant nor in-depth. If you're putting forward sources like this in order to establish notability, you're hurting your case, not helping. HighKing++ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fall for that deletion booby trap: WP:THREE. That is the way folks get articles deleted - demanding three - and WP:THREE is just an essay. Three is not even a requirement for WP:N which is our actual guideline, There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. theleekycauldron. We have a preponderance of evidence here in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:ONE? Levivich (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NCORP guideline discusses WP:MULTSOURCES, e.g. "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. [...] for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area." And so far, we do not appear to have even one source that can meet the WP:SIRS criteria, which does not permit a preponderance of evidence for supporting notability. This is a local company, and WP:NOTADVERT says these are typically not notable. WP:NCORP is a stricter standard by design, because the guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, so trivial coverage and company personnel talking about the company is not enough to support encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, what is really notable is a lack of good faith engagement by the Keep !voters when asked to simply point to two or three sources that in their opinion meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Not many answered, instead calling it a "trap" which is nonsense. One Keep !voter, Bri, responded and provided what they believed were good sources. But Beccanyr correctly pointed out that none meets the criteria. Also, part of Bri's closing argument to justify their !vote Keep was when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered - but this fails WP:SIRS. For me, having looked at every single source mentioned, none of the sources meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (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.
More