Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espresso House


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baby miss fortune 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Espresso House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "huge chain". Well, huge is subjective, size is not a criteria mentioned in any policy/guideline, and also this claim is unreferenced. Seems like WP:YELLOWPAGES spam to me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very large chain. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Size is not sufficient, it is not mentioned in any policy/guideline on notability. And you also failed to note that this claim is self-published and can be marketing hoax.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Swedish Wikipedia article provides more details and several news sources, including this one from Dagens Industri reporting on the sale of the company to JAB Holding Company, the Liechtenstein-based holding company for the super-rich Reimann family, which also owns a number of other major coffee companies around the world.  We can dispense with the "marketing hoax" concern. Searches reveal many sources in Swedish and other Scandanavian languages about this company, and I think the article can be improved by editors with some facility in those languages.  At a minimum a merge into the JAB article could be considered, but deletion would not be appropriate.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's the local version of Starbucks, and an attention-generating one at that. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs expansion and better references for sure. But still notable chain and a known brand in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable chain, in the sense that it's ubiquitous in its home market and thus of interest to the general public, has sources and is clearly verifiable with more. /Julle (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Huge chain, clearly notable with significant coverage. In the intro I read that the article does not meet Notability (biographies). Espresso House, however, is a company, not a person. It seems that the prodding, then nomination were both based in error. gidonb (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Especially with online translation getting ever better, no real excuse for not doing a little work before nominating such articles - WP:BEFORE applies here. Edwardx (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very well known chain - any attempts at WP:BEFORE would have turned up sources to confirm that. Sources are not restricted to site:.se/.no/.dk, and proposing that the claim "largest Nordic coffee house chain" could be a marketing hoax is a misconception that easily could have been avoided with just a Gnews search finding a source such as I have added a few citation to sources, and the available sources show that the company easily meets WP:ORGCRIT. Sam Sailor 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. As this nomination is rather bizarre, there are and can be responses only one way. Discussion can be closed as speedy and WP:SNOWBALL. gidonb (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above notable chain.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 5 December 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.