Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bauhaus books + 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 no consensus. There's no consensus to delete here after two relists. If a merge is appropriate that discussion can continue on the article's talk page.  A  Train talk 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bauhaus books + coffee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

That a funky local store would get local coverage is not a surprise--that's what local papers do. But I contend that the coverage is not broad, deep, and really independent enough for this to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Coffee in Seattle. This business isn't unique enough or notable enough to have its own article. I found one article in the Kansas City Business Journal that was an in-depth profile of the Bauhaus coffee shop and its history and for a second I thought it was evidence of significant media attention outside Seattle. Then I realized it was actually another Bauhaus coffee in another city, that happened to have the same basic story arc as the Seattle one. Run-of-the-mill, in other words. But still, most of the content fits nicely in Coffee in Seattle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dennis Bratland--I would not oppose a merge of (trimmed) content. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable business, just one of hundreds in the city. Absolutely none of this is worth merging to the coffee article. Reywas92Talk 22:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I started this article. It passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses.
 * The content here would be undue to include in coffee in Seattle. The merge that is mentioned above would be cutting this to 1-2 sentences or even just a list entry. There is no space shortage in Wikipedia and if we have content backed with citations we are not pressed to delete that.
 * There is no rule that local sources are unworthy of being cited. Yes, this is a local coffeehouse and not of broad international interest, but the sources discussing this are doing so because the place was of interest to local people. Wikipedia already has a precedent of allowing all sorts of local articles to be cited, for example, for biographies of local artists, local art objects, and cultural topics. This article has sources cited over a period of years and that demonstrates that there was lasting interest in the topic from multiple perspectives.
 * In Seattle this sort of coffeehouse is WP:MILL but in most cities, coffeehouses would not get any news coverage. Seattle is unusual for having a coffeehouse culture where all sorts of coffeehouse trivialities get journalism coverage just because people in Seattle are eager to read that sort of content. This article is a summary of local coverage of local culture and in general, local content has a place on Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Bauhaus attracts patrons who like to read and study." "The old furniture is part of the atmosphere of the place." Are you joking? This is as run-of-the-mill as it gets! No, Seattle does not have some mystical coffee culture that makes the local coverage of the university paper listing some places to study, a neighborhood weekly noting the opening of a business, or a random blog discussing the atmosphere significant coverage for notability on Wikipedia. Local news around the world covers this sort of stuff too and Wikipedia would be overrun with hundreds of thousands of these articles if that were the bar for inclusion. Please don't point out WP:OTHERSTUFF - art and artists, themselves overrepresented, are not the same. Reywas92Talk 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not joking. Wikipedia is full of articles that say things like "this monument commememorates (something local)" or "this artist's work expresses hope". The significance is not in the words, but instead in the fact that reputable publications found this information important enough to put this kind of information in print. The AfD process is not a critique of what people think is interesting versus what is boring. There is a demographic of people who are interested in reading about coffeehouses and that interest has led to journalism and passing GNG. Check the sources - these are not university newspapers as you say. Even if there were a school newspaper, that combined with other sources can establish notability. Seattle's coffee culture is not mystic but it does meet GNG at Coffee in Seattle which is unusual as compared to most other cities.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Aside from a few sentences in travel guides all the sources I can find are local. As Notability (organizations and companies) says: ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , WP:GNG says specifically that a article that meets those criteria are presumed to meet the requirements, but not guaranteed. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we accept an article with only local reviews, every restaurant in the country that ever had a few reviews in the local paper could have an article, making Wikipedia a restaurant directory. This fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with the reason given above by StarryGrandma. MB 02:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses. Just because an article can be deleted doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please list two references that you believe definitely meet the criteria for establishing notability and I may reconsider my !vote. -- HighKing ++ 13:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SahabAli говорити  17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no indications or notability or significance or that the business has achieved a cult following. Sourcing is local and / or passing mentions not meeting WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to merge, so a deletion is the best option when it comes to nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability. Local coverage is insufficient to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing ++ 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Coffee in Seattle seems like the best option. I'm not certain there's enough unique about this coffeehouse to justify including any content there, delete if there's nothing to merge. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.