Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReAnimator 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Since there isn't a consensus on a viable ATD, there is nowhere to redirect it. Should consensus emerge on one, happy to restore the history for merger. Star Mississippi 12:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReAnimator Coffee

[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)

I just declined a G11 nomination here on the basis that the page isn't overtly promotional, but I'm not convinced this subject is actually notable so filing this nomination instead. News coverage seems to entirely be from local media. Sam Walton (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find anything other than purely local mentions of what seems to be an entirely unremarkable and rather small chain.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Philadelphia Inquirer is a large regional daily paper; but in this case it's acting as a local paper and this is a good example of gaming the system. Los Angeles Times doing routine, local coverage of restaurants of local spots, Philadelphia Inquirer doing the same are for all intents and purposes local coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that while we should consider alternative to deletion if there is a feasible alternative but third wave of coffee is not a good target. I think the gears have to mesh together reasonably well. For example, I would say organic mustard into mustard (condiment) is a reasonable merge. An org/corp/product page local non-notable mustard boutique shop is not a reasonable merge & redirect to the mustard page. Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into third wave of coffee, as an WP:ATD. Short article and perhaps not yet individually notable. gidonb (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article, adding a number of sources. These sources include Jacobin, The Infatuation, and Sprudge, all of which have a national remit. -- Mainly 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Jacobin reference is a passing mention in different context, single word in fact. The rest of the references that have been added are clickbait and PR and don't constitute WP:SECONDARY sourcing. They fail WP:SIRS, all of them. scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources, including the recently added sources, meet the criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:21, 11 October 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.