Talk:List of coffee companies

AfD discussion
A December 2004 deletion discussion is available at Votes for deletion/List of coffee companies

Question about inclusion
I notice that standard treatment for new list items with redlinks is deletion. Can new items be added without article links, e.g.:

I guess my question is more about notability requirements for the list. We want to cut down on spam, but as it is, the list hasn't grown much in the past while, and it definitely seems incomplete. There are a lot more coffee companies than just these, and I'll bet that some of the ones that are currently listed are far less notable than others. What makes a company notable enough to be on this list? Any thoughts? --dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 13:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although obviously I am not the ruling authority of list inclusion or anything (though I somehow seem to have become that, de facto, for this list), I would be opposed to the addition to this list of companies that do not have either a Wikipedia article (which requires notability, in itself) or a third-party source asserting their notability. Without one of those things, the list risks turning into complete spam, with everyone and their brother adding companies which may or may not exist and may or may not be worth a mention. So I could live with " XYZ Company " or " XYZ Company ", but not a redlinked, completely unsourced addition of XYZ company. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, just tracked down the guideline that was in the back of my head while I did this. WP:LSC says that the list selection criteria should be one of the following:

(begin quote)
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.  This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.  Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
 * Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.
 * Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.  The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.  For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses.  However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.
 * (end quote)
 * I would say that of those choices, only the first one is feasible for a list of coffee companies. We have no reason to have a list of non-notable coffee companies or a list of every coffee company that could possibly exist. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

lock of the brand
Zmugeoner (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Julius Meinl 1862, Austria, yes, yes

Boyd's Coffee
Should Boyd's Coffee be included? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)