Draft talk:Seattle Coffee Works/Archive 1

More on Zimmern
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://seattle.eater.com/2011/7/26/6667039/more-details-on-andrew-zimmern
 * https://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/2012/01/andrew-zimmerns-seattle-episode-airs-february-6-january-2012
 * https://seattle.eater.com/2012/2/2/6616913/zimmerns-top-5-seattle-moments
 * https://seattle.eater.com/2011/7/29/6666131/andrew-zimmern-visits-seattle-is-all-about-canlis

Cappuccino Photo
Relevance to the article? It just looks like any photo of cappuccino LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove or replace! This was one of the first pictures I could find at Wikimedia Commons related to the company, before I uploaded my own photographs. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

exactly how many coffee shops in Seattle are actually notable?
Category:Coffee_in_Seattle would indicate there are literally dozens of notable coffee shops in Seattle. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you asking this question on this specific talk page? Seems more appropriate for Talk:Coffee in Seattle. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking here because this is like the 30th+ article and was created most recently. I think your assessment of sources is problematic when it comes to your local area. It seems very iffy that there'd be 30+ notable coffeeshops in a city the size of Seattle. I am really concerned, AB. You don't seem to have slowed down from the concerns raised in December.
 * Which three sources here are supporting notability? I am seeing only local sources, no sigcov outside the local area. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to be so concerned, but you're welcome to place a notability tag on this article so others can weigh in. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So instead of you telling me which three source you believe support a claim to notability, you're going to make me assess 20 sources, which will take me likely hours? Why won't you just tell me which three sources you believe support notability? Why, AB? Why won't you just tell me which three sources convinced you? Valereee (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not making you do anything here. I'm fine with Wikipedia having this entry. You're free to question the notability of this topic. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend my time on Wikipedia than fighting this entry's existence, but that's just me. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AB, you seem to be telling me that you want to create articles about non-notable subjects and that you think other editors should simply ignore it because it's not worth their time to fight it. It's really dismaying that you think that's okay. I always thought you were well-intentioned. This is making me rethink. Very dismaying. I thought you were better than that, I really did. Valereee (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to create entries for non-notable topics and I'm not asking other editors to ignore anything. I believe I'm creating entries about notable topics, but you seem to disagree. I'm sorry to disappoint you. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are refusing to tell me which three. That is disruptive. Which three convinced you, AB? Which three? Just tell us which three. Literally why won't you just tell us: which three sources convinced YOU? You say I believe I'm creating entries about notable topics. What makes you believe they're notable? Valereee (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Another Believer because this is really something I want an answer to: Which three-and-no-more-than-three sources made you believe this was a notable topic? Valereee (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer, and now I see you've added another ten sources. Why are you just adding more and more and more sources instead of just answering the very simple question: which three sources prove notability? Valereee (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

About the source assessment
Why am I having to do a full source assessment for 20 BS sources in order to prove a negative? AB didn't do the due diligence. Why do I have to spend hours proving it? Valereee (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I filled in 1. the single source that was used more than once and 2. two others. None support notability. If anyone else wants to go through this and show there's even one that supports notability, please do. But this editor clearly mistakenly believes that number of mentions somehow confers notability. As far as I can tell none of these sources shows notability. Anyone else should feel free to fill out the rest of the source assessment. 20 sources with zero evidence any of them supports notability is infuriating. Valereee (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Source assessment
Valereee (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Valereee: I might have some time to chime in on this tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)