Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is niche and un-notable in any circumstance, with only 13 Sources, some of which being irrelevant to the article in question. This article is about a subject that has no relevance to those other than the residents of Capitol Hill. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be plenty of decent sourcing. The niche-ness is not a reason to delete, there are plenty of niche topics that receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as this one. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable per WP:RS so our rules say "keep". I think the most obvious merge target, our Capitol Hill, Seattle article, is long enough already.
 * I wish my town had one of these.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Washington.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (weak keep, more or less). When there are a whole bunch of local sources, we know that we have enough material to use to write an article, but we need to find evidence that it's of interest to a suitably broad audience. So that's what I looked for, and found Boing Boing, Vice, and Slate (via Atlas Obscura, but nonetheless published to Slate which IIRC curated some of AO's content for a while). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several reliable sources have covered both its existence and disappearance, so it easily meets GNG. It has more than just hyperlocal appeal, given the coverage from non-local sources.  Sounder Bruce  21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I agree it's a niche article, that's a poor argument for deletion. Large swathes of Wikipedia are niche-but-notable, might as well nominate those too! - dasime (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Article creator here. It's obviously niche, which is true for many Wikipedia articles, what matters is that it's sourced and meets GNG. Wikipedia doesn't decide what's relevant or not, the existence of sources does. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (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.