Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unseen Bean

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unseen Bean

Pulled from the db-spam deletion queue. A difficult case that could use some discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's the nominator's argument in support of deletion? Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 06:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to talk about the hows and whys, like how much of a rationale should be provided by the deleting (or in this case non-deleting) admin, feel free to discuss here or on my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: See this diff—someone other than Dank55 nominated it for speedy deletion as spam.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FYI, I was the speedy delete nominator. Reason then and now is primarily based upon the patently weak substantiation of notability based (so far) solely on twitter comments by Lance Armstrong, and some Yelp reviews of the place. My thoughts on the speedy nomination were "Hmmm... one short paragraph and a mention by Lance Armstrong on Twitter ... appears to be a simple Hey! We exist! entry ..." Mind you, sounds like the kind of place that I might check out as a rabid coffee afficionado, I just don't think that based on the entry's references that this rises to any level of notability for an encyclopedia entry. -Quartermaster (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "unseen+bean"+boulder&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en Google News turns up several news reports about the place. While some of them are local, there are several others as well. -- Mgm|^(talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the articles references are in my opinion WP:SPS, and the article is written as spam; However, the article can be rewritten, and other sources can be found to establish notability, eg Reuters Blogs - BUT written by Reuters Staff, article by Alice Ashmore, ANCHORA writer, and CU Bboulder TV. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The central issue here ought to be whether the subject meets the standard for significant news coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Let's look at those cited by the article and a few by AfD commenters here. The Armstrong tweets are a distraction and don't deserve serious treatment; let's ignore them. The Reuters blog coverage was a human interest piece tangential to their reportage on the DNC. (Had this seen broader exposure beyond a reporter's blog, it might meet the benchmark.) The Ashmore piece appears in a Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired newsletter; its target is a narrow, special-interest audience. And, not to belabor this, but the Yelp pieces are predominantly reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece. Neither significance nor depth of news coverage are established; the article fails WP:COMPANY. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I do not think regarding reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece is a good reason to disregard references. I think regarding reviews with an opinion of their content as to what is notable, may lead to a pick and chose attitude, an opinion of the wiki editors as to what they think is important, regardless of the amount of coverage. I think what is meant by "Trivial or incidental" at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria refers to the amount of coverage, not the ~~quality~~ content of ~~this~~ the coverage. i.e. I think the following are trivial and incidental:[1][2][3] etc.. While the references may not be in depth coverage, multiple independent sources can be cited to establish notability. See also CU Bboulder TV, Denver Post (Denver, CO), Rocky Mountain News, Daily Camera, are in my view multiple independent sources establishing notability. Also I think blind and visually impaired are perhaps a niche audience, but they still count, and their independent publications can count as a good source. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC). Post Scriptum: the other news reference I found is Fox, but is not a valid reference as it is a press release. I agree with the Armstrong reference being no such thing. what next? The restaurant he has lunch in? The people he meets? Ludicrous. Amusingly, perhaps this is an unusual case of WP:NOTINHERITED.[reply]

Information. Searching Lexis-Nexis Academic for the phrase "unseen bean" for the last 10 years within Major US and World Publications, News Wire Services, TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts, Company, and SEC Filings returns 12 hits.

1 hit: The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle. Blind businessman says his product, not his disability, attracts customers. 683 words. Only substantive article found.
1 hit: Company profile from Netvention (a directory entry)
1 hit: Global Broadcast Database indicates brief mention of "Unseen Bean" on local ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
2 hits: Market Wire, August 14, 2008 mentions "Unseen Bean Coffee Company" supplying coffee in the blogger tent at the Democratic National Convention.
5 "false drops" (mostly mentions of "unseen Bean" referring to unseen episodes of "Mr. Bean."

Summary: In 10 years, only one piece specifically about the company and the individual running it. Other entries are only mentions (no details), directory entry, or false drops (search terms satisfied, but not about subject -Quartermaster (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: list of refrences so far:

Sources

Reuters Blogs - BUT written by Reuters Staff
article by Alice Ashmore, ANCHORA writer
CU Bboulder TV.
Denver Post (Denver, CO)
Rocky Mountain News
Daily Camera
The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle
ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
mention in Market Wire, August 14, 2008.

other point, I do not think spam is a good reason to delete. Article seems notable, needs a clean up, not deletion. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without any additional sources, this just manages to fail WP:ORG. The Twitter reference is not even worth discussing. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep: New information provides multiple instances of WP:RS. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I should have done this at the beginning of the deletion discussion. The article has been rewritten from scratch and notability has been established per the general notability guideline via significant and exclusive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references were not on the article at the time I added a delete ~~notice~~ vote. Thanks for the save. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I just added them now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are good enough for me. Neat topic. Zagalejo^^^ 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, Editor:LinguistAtLarge, for the SAVE. The article deserves a keep. Overtime more can be extracted from the references. Unique is, or should be, a valid reson for inclusion in the Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 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.