Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

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

This is yet another article on a non-notable topic related to the war against terror created by Geo Swan (talk · contribs). The references provided in the article note that it is routine for US military bases to have Starbucks and other fast famous food franchises (eg, one includes a quote that "There is (of course) a Starbucks, a McDonalds, a combined Subway-Pizza Hut, a Wal-Mart-like big box store called the Nex and a gift shop" and another that "fast food options remain in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Washington Post obtained a line-by-line breakdown of capital expenditures at the U.S. naval station in Guantanamo Bay, and it turns out that the Pentagon has spent at least $500 million since 9/11 renovating the base, including "$683,000 to renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee, and $773,000 to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant" so there's nothing unusual about this (though it does seem a bit odd to people unfamiliar with the kind of facilities on US military bases)). The sources provided to link this cafe it to the goings-on at Guantanamo mention it only in passing - for instance this article is actually about the duration and dullness of the current court proceedings and not the cafe and this story says only that "F.B.I. interrogators provided Al Qaeda suspects with “food whenever they were hungry as well as Starbucks coffee". To cap it, according to the US military website used as a reference in the article ([1]), the cafe isn't actually a Starbucks, but is a coffee bar called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' which sells Starbucks products as well as products produced by other companies. As such, I don't see how WP:ORG is met here. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First this nomination lapses from our standards which state the discussion should be about the article, and the topic of the article -- and has instead commented on the character of the individual who started the article. Second, it is marred by selective bias in the choice of references criticized, and, sorry, the way those references are criticized is misleading.
As Starbucks go this is a small one. But it is a significant one, as several aspects of it have tied it to the torture debate. Commentators have asked, since the second set of interrogators were able to get the suspects to acknowledge their role in terrorism simply through offering them a Starbucks coffee, then was it really necessary for the first set of interrogators to torture them? Geo Swan (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you've got a habit of creating similar articles, I thought that was worth pointing out. The "subject of coffee from Starbucks and torture" (to quote the article) is about whether torture was needed, and not actually about Starbucks. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no statement asserting the notability of this topic in the article. WP:ORG is not met. The title of the article is misleading too and does not even match the subject. The actual name of the facility is "The Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)" (misspelled in the image description) where among other things they happen to sell Starbucks brand coffee. So, what? Not notable. WTucker (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, are you suggesting that an article on a topic that has had many WP:RS address it over the last seven years has to explicitly state it is notable?
  Second, we never delete articles on notable topics simply because some contributors think the article should be at a different name. Instead we discuss alternate names. Could you please suggest your alternate name on the talk page?
  Third, commentators have questioned why the USA needed to torture its suspects in the first place when sympathetic listening and Starbucks coffee was enough to get them to talk about their role in terrorism. Could you please explain why you do not see this as conferring notability?
  Fourth, while Starbucks has something like ten thousand outlets, the location of this location makes it special enough that it has come in for significant coverage. The following reference I just added devotes half a chapter to Starbucks at Guantanamo. Starbucks has something like 10,000 outlets. How many have required Starbucks HQ to repeatedly go on record on controversial political issues? They did so with the Starbucks at Guantanamo -- and not 9,900 other outlets. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nick Turse (2009-03-03). The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives. MacMillan Publishing. p. 61-64. ISBN 9780805089196. Retrieved 2012-05-09. When questioned about its implicit support for the prison camp/torture center, in correspondence made available by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Starbucks claimed it had always 'been committed to operating its business in a socially responsbile way and to living by a set of Guding Principles that includes treating people with respect and dignity.'
  See WP:SPEEDY#A7. An article about an organization (among others) that does not indicate why it is important or significant is a candidate for speedy deletion. I see that you have now added a statement that the presence of the Starbucks has stirred controversy thus asserting importance. This statement appears to be unsourced and only inferred from the statements from human rights groups who, I assert, are trying to stir controversy. By the way, I have no better title suggestion -- I voted delete. WTucker (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the store itself, which is not a Starbucks, is not notable enough. Any notable information - and there seems to be some - should be moved to the Guantanamo Naval Base article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sake, it's a coffee bar on a military base! Big deal! Any relevant info can be merged with the Guantanamo Naval Base article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order -- several contributors here have asserted that this article should be deleted because this coffee shop is "not a Starbucks".
As seen in the nearby image the coffee shop displays Starbuck's very closely guarded logo, stating "we proudly brew Starbuck Coffee". I suggest when a coffee shop legitimately displays the Starbucks' logo, uses Starbucks' coffee, in Starbucks' cups, it is legitimate to call it a Starbucks.
I invite those who based their "delete" opinion on the challenge as to whether this coffee shop should be allowed to be called a Starbucks offer their alternate definition of what does and doesn't constitute a Starbucks. Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather odd claim: the US military, which runs this cafe, says its called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' and also sells other company's products (such as the ice cream being advertised in the window at the bottom right of the photo, I imagine). Anyway, the reason I nominated this for deletion was that it doesn't meet WP:ORG, and by my reading that's the reason the other editors who have supported the deletion have given. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I suspect the article creator, like myself, is keen to point out instances where U.S. capitalism has a conflict of interest U.S. military strategy. However a Starbucks at any U.S. military base, on the mainland or abroad, is completely unremarkable, it's common practice. This could be conveyed in one sentence on the main Guantanamo article. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]