Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocoa Locale

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 no consensus to delete. WP:LOCAL is still an essay lacking consensus to be a guideline, and thus shouldn't be heavily relied upon in AfD arguments. While the topic has primarily local interest, this discussion landed in the direction of "keep", because the bakery has received enough non-trivial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Jamie^☆S93 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoa Locale

I created this article, and it's sourced with news coverage in major papers in Montreal as well as the Ottawa weekly -- but I'm not sure it's encyclopedically notable. I rely on your good judgement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is only local, lots of local businesses get the occasional article. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Technically it meets WP:NOTE but WP:LOCAL is intended to exclude such. I'm borderline on this one since there is an Ottawa source and Montreal sources but it really is a local bakery without the celebrity of Magnolia Bakery. I would be open to a convincing argument otherwise. Drawn Some (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think the Ottawa weekly was a reprint of the same piece in the chain's sister publication in Montreal, Hour. I didn't realize that when I added it. I also did come across a small mention in Air Canada's inflight magazine referring to Cocoa Locale as a "cult sensation," but again, local restaurants often get such write ups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not defined by whether a business has reached celebrity status; it is defined by how many news organizations have covered it. A casual glance at the references in this article proves that this business is indeed notable. Deleting this notable, sourced article would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bakery passes WP:GNG, a guideline. WP:LOCAL is an essay which hasn't gained consensus to become a guideline; the essay, Wikipedia:Essays are not policy, invalidates to your WP:LOCAL argument.
The sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources proves that this bakery passes WP:N. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A local bakeshop doesn't seem like the kind of topic a serious encyclopedia should be covering, but it has been discussed in reliable sources -- so we have to have it. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some good sourcing for this article. But I've been to Cocoa Locale, I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years. It's somewhat locally notable, but nothing more. Papers often cover new or cutesy businesses. The fact that this got covered four times doesn't show anything more than local notability to my mind. Hairhorn (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has had some local coverage, but I don't think it has had "significant" coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are these sources not significant coverage? They are, so the bakery easily passes WP:N. Cunard (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bakery has been noted by independent reliable sources in a non-trivial way, so it passes. I consider WP:LOCAL to be instructive, but I don't think it has sufficiently wide consensus to base deletion decisions upon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:41, 6 June 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.