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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Coffee[edit]

Woods Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable company. Promotional article created by User:WoodsCoffee. Removal of promotional content yields not very much of note. WP:ORG states "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". We have only one of those, an article in Seattle Business Magazine. Is this enough to make this single-county coffee chain worthy of note in an encyclopaedia? I think not, firstly because that article is basically one big quote by Herman, the company's founder - it contains no critical analysis or insight, and therefore appears promotional in nature, and could quite easily be a paid PR piece. Secondly because WP:ORG states "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" I tried to find other non-local sources but couldn't' find any significant in-depth coverage about this organisation. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 criteria. Company that makes no assertion of importance of significance.--v/r - TP 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A small local chain could be notable, but I think there should be some clear reason for notability. Even two independent sources should not be enough without that - after all, coffee shops are not unusual in themselves.--AJHingston (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found no sources in a Google book search, but news sources exist which mention the place, especially local news from The Bellingham Herald.
  • "The Woods Coffee brews up RFID payment-loyalty program", Nation's Restaurant News
  • "Woods Coffee moves onto the waterfront: rapidly growing company aims to become regional coffee giant.", Bellingham Business Journal
  • "Best coffee: The Woods Coffee", December 8, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
  • "Best coffee shop: The Woods Coffee", December 2, 2009, The Bellingham Herald
  • " Woods Coffee holding contest to create downtown art landmark", January 25, 2011, The Bellingham Herald
  • "The Woods Coffee opens store at Birch Bay Square", May 7, 2009, The Northern Light
  • "Vandals hit Boulevard coffee shop", April 7, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
  • "The Woods Coffee to support Kenya education program", January 2, 2009, The Bellingham Herald
  • "Woods Coffee to open new site", February 14, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
  • " Woods Coffee to open in former Tully's spot on Meridian", April 7, 2011, The Bellingham Herald
  • "Opportunity Council, The Woods Coffee win chamber awards", October 16, 2008, The Bellingham Herald
    • These are mostly local news sources but they establish that the company is regionally known and highly regarded in its area. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to establish it is locally known, all being local sources from the same county. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Are there any state or broader regional publications mentioning this company? The Nations Restaurant News article, like the Seattle Business Magazine one, appears to fall into the category of "works in which the company talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people".--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The readers or editors of the Bellingham Herald voted Woods Coffee the best in 2008 and 2009. The local chamber of commerce voted Woods Coffee the "Green Business of the Year" in 2008. Those items are not generated by Woods PR department. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were. What we have is purely local coverage, with some minimal PR-related regional/national coverage. The local coverage is fine in itself, but isn't enough on its own to establish notability in the absence of genuine regional coverage.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is my understanding from the primary source www.woodscoffeeboycott.com is that there are allegations of the owner prohibiting certain periodicals from his establishment. Do any of these periodicals have content about Woods Coffee? Even if negative, they could be used to help pass this article's notability requirements. Phearson (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These periodicals are almost all local sources as is the primary source vendetta website. The anonymous complainer has made clear his/her intention to damage Woods Coffee. Deleting the article favors that position. Not cool. Dubyus (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:ORG is quite clear that non-local sources are required. Certainly local media in Bellingham seem to like this place, but that fails of the relevant notability criteria. Would Binksternet care to cite what valid policy or guideline supports keeping this article?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no problem at all with the requirements listed at WP:ORG, specifically at WP:CORPDEPTH. The guideline asks for notice from independent sources, and we have that from the local Chamber of Commerce, the readers or editors of the Bellingham Herald, and from the 40-year-old national publication Nation's Restaurant News. At CORPDEPTH we are told the company needs at least one regional or larger reliable source, which we have from Nation's Restaurant News. I continue to see that this article should be kept because it meets the requirements of notability established in WP's guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; a bit of research does highlight NRN as a noted industry source, which does seem to satisfy the GNG in this case. Changing my vote to Keep in consequence.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ravenswing and Binksternet. Also, recent edits attributes WP:N with the sculpture controversy. Phearson (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find the essay WP:local a good read in this case, nethertheless in light of the substantial secondary sources i lean to keep (for now......) Ottawa4ever (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Picking the article clean and then complaining that there's not enough information is laughable. 2 people have indicated that they are willing to redo the article within guidelines. According to a member of Woods Coffee management, Starbucks, Peet's_Coffee_&_Tea, and Tully's_Coffee (all comparable coffee shops in the area) were consulted by whoever constructed the original Woods_Coffee Wikipedia article. Dubyus (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless Dubyus, they did not consult wikipedia's policies, and that is why there were WP:COI issues being brought up on the talk page on not just woods coffee, but those pages as well, especially with the issue of the Starbuck's union. Phearson (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like there's a good case that they meet WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that the inappropriate promotional material has been removed. The local sources aren't just the usual "new store X opening" fluff, but do have some in-depth coverage. In particular, the RFID story (Binksternet's first item) highlights an innovation in the marketplace, published in a nonlocal source. The article would definitely benefit from other and more-truly independent sources (I agree that even this RFID one is substantially parrotting self-sourced). I agree with Phearson, that being involved in a local controversy (especially if WP:RS comment on it) is valid content. It may even be one of the keys to this company being notable. Likewise with the public art situation (reliable source mentions some public negative response...looks like a balanced story with in-depth coverage related to company). Dubyus would do well to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NPOV if he thinks the previous content made this article viable and on par with the others and WP:COI if he thinks this store is on par with the others. DMacks (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good find, bring it to the talk page/Article. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2011 (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.