Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestorm Cafe & Books


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Firestorm Cafe & Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

existing sources and quick search does not show wider notability. Fails WP:NCORP, especially in terms of establishing sufficient sigcov from sources that satisfies broad audience requirements. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ORGCRITE. Neighborhood coffeehouses are not inherently notable. KidAd   talk  23:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. No effort by the nom or the superficial !vote to present a reasoned argument that the subject does not meet the GNG. We have hundreds of thousands of articles which so not fit into SNG pigeonholes, and the pigeonhole claim alone cannot justify deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Others exist is not a good cause against deletion in this case. You can make improvements by AfDing those that fail notability test.Graywalls (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep; The first three references give strong notability with regard to the role and function of this establishment in the community. It is more than a neighbourhood coffee house.   --Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * request for clarification, which three? If you meant sequentially, Significant, independent, reliable and secondary.  #1 and 2: these two are the same sources. Worker-run. Collectively-managed. Anarchist publishing and distribution since 1990. It might not pass independent and reliable as far as notability establishment is concerned. The article is tagged "AK Allies" and it appears that there's a wholesaler/retailer relationship between the two. I'm assuming that the cafe in question sells AK Press published books, thus "independent" (of the group writing about the article subject) is questionable.  #3: it's the organization itself. absolutely fails "independent" requirements. Graywalls (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Doesn't look good—almost all of the coverage is routine and hyper-local (Mountain Xpress, WLOS, Blue Ridge Public Radio, Citizen Times) about local news/Asheville topics. And there's these two, but altogether there isn't enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write an article worthy of the subject.
 * Not finding traction in alt weeklies or radical press publications either. czar  18:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That book might not do it for WP:AUD, and content wise I can't comment since I can't see it. The boingboing. Given how dependent it is on the subject's facebook and Instagram pages, this looks like a mostly dependent coverage with sensational comments regarding a single event. If this event received ongoing coverage beyond the month or so after the incident, I would say it adds to notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a rather strained argument. Did these warrant analysis? I listed them because they're both innocuous. Surowski is an industry journal article that has a quarter-page section on the bookstore. You can request EBSCOhost access at WP:TWL, especially if you expect to be nominating many more articles. Boing Boing is sufficient for what it is regardless of whether the stated incident has further coverage. It has no issues of "dependency" with the subject matter. As I said, we'd need more to constitute significant coverage for the topic but that doesn't disqualify both these sources are independent, reliable, ultimately fine, yet weak for notability without further sources. czar  01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That book might not do it for WP:AUD, and content wise I can't comment since I can't see it. The boingboing. Given how dependent it is on the subject's facebook and Instagram pages, this looks like a mostly dependent coverage with sensational comments regarding a single event. If this event received ongoing coverage beyond the month or so after the incident, I would say it adds to notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a rather strained argument. Did these warrant analysis? I listed them because they're both innocuous. Surowski is an industry journal article that has a quarter-page section on the bookstore. You can request EBSCOhost access at WP:TWL, especially if you expect to be nominating many more articles. Boing Boing is sufficient for what it is regardless of whether the stated incident has further coverage. It has no issues of "dependency" with the subject matter. As I said, we'd need more to constitute significant coverage for the topic but that doesn't disqualify both these sources are independent, reliable, ultimately fine, yet weak for notability without further sources. czar  01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep; enough coverage, per BBw & others. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep we have reliable sources to prove WP:N. Wm335td (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * explain please If you would say which sources and which of those satisfyWP:ORGDEPTH, it would help a whole lot more than just say "we have reliable sources". Mountain Express is a local source; and series or articles by the same publication or same journalist counts as one, so that's one. Not one of the sources currently shown meets the criteria significant, independent, reliable and secondary and nobody so far has offered sources that do. Of those that meets all those, a minimum of one has to be regional, national or international. Also, a few hours is somethimg, but that "keep" vote was casted four days past when the AfD should have wrapped up on the second relist.  Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (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.