Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique


 * 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, without prejudice towards renaming. Good example of Heymann standard here. Deryck C. 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Referenciness in this article is provided entirely by recycled press releases. There is no substantive independent coverage of this business, and the fact that the same or similar IPs have been spamming links to its website rather suggests that its intent is promotional. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i was certain that when I was working on this last year that there were multiple international sources covering it and that there was coverage over several year span, but my memory seems to be deceiving me - all i see for international coverage is the daily fail, and all the coverage is from Nov 2012. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – If not independently notable, this could be merged to Vending machine § Specialized vending, as a functional WP:ATD that would enhance that article. North America1000 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert article to original title and generalize it - There was quite a bit of press coverage about this when it first came out. The article, when accepted at AfC, was called "Caviar vending machine".  As soon as it was moved to its current name, problems started with promotional links being added.  If the article was once more about caviar vending machines in general, then information could be included about machines in Russia,   This isn't a new idea - here's a 1947 article  and a 1955 article  . A more general article wouldn't need information about specific locations and prices, so it could be more neutral.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there enough about what would make a caviar vending machine unique and deserving of stand alone coverage as compared to the much more ubiquitous and heavily covered soda vending machine or sandwich vending machine?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that soda vending machine is a redlink just suggests that no one has written the article, not that it is non-notable. It almost certainly is notable.  Indeed I would suggest you could go a step further and write a valid article just on Coke vending machines.  And we do have Gumball machine, which is much the same idea.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * merge per Northamerica1000 along with the extra sources provided here by Anne Delong (unless something comes up about how caviar vending machines make great punchlines - setting them apart from other vending machines) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the incongruity of the luxury product in a fast-food dispenser, plus the very high value of the contents of the machine, plus the frozen product. The large amount of press coverage when the machines were new seems to indicate that the journalists thought they were notable.  Also, the Vending machine article is getting pretty big.  However, a merge is better than an outright deletion.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (but the proper title is simply "Beverly Hill Caviar") - the business has received reliable source coverage mostly for its vending machine, sure, but that coverage spans a period of time (i.e. not all stories are from Nov 2012 when it attracted a lot of attention - regular coverage has continued with multiple sources appearing in 2014) and is often in depth.   It has also attracted RS coverage at least twice (once by Forbes) for it pet food cavier line.  Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter why a business got reliable source coverage, only that it did.  If reliable sources think vending machine caviar is an interesting enough idea to give Beverly Hill Caviar in depth coverage, then it is not our place to decide the business remains non-notable.
 * If promotional links by IPs remain a problem, the article can be semi-protected, so that is not an issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Retain as is. Don't merge. This company was notable in 2012 because it set up caviar machines in Beverly Hills, of all places. If the were set up in Moscow they wouldn't have been Notable. Even if they were taken out later (and I don't know if they were or not), they were still notable, so they deserve an article here. I don't believe we will get consensus for the complete removal of this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Barnstar to  for improving the article with sources to meet WP:GNG. From my own search, it appears to have non-trival coverage in Forbes, Yahoo Food, Wired, Village Voice and LA Times. Dates cover a period of 2 years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:01, 8 May 2015 (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.