Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fonte 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fonte Coffee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apart from the Boston Herald review and Chicago Tribune excerpt (which aren't great), page is supported by regional coverage. WP:GNG. Page is also fairly promotional, indicated by coi tag. Jppcap (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep; While it is a regional coffee maker, it has notable reviews. It needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Frmorrison (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete While this local coffee maker has a few reviews, so do thousands of other brands that, like it, don't qualify for Wikipedia. Worse, the creator hid the fact that these were reviews and not real articles. WP:TooSoon imho172.56.22.40 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 08:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing in Google news. Page is supported by PR.Hudson bait (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be more important than any regular coffee roaster.  Boston and Chicago paper mentions above.  Also a business periodicals search yields a Wine Spectator (national/international magazine) one page article with photo about it.  I don't have access to the full text, but info/abstract are:  Author: Mark Pendergrast.  Wine Spectator. 8/31/2010, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p29-29. 1p. 1 Color Photograph.  Abstract:  "The article focuses on coffee roaster Fonté which supply coffee beans to high-end hotels in the U.S. It notes that master roaster Steve Smith has introduced several coffee blends such as the Arabian Mocha Java, the Yemeni Blackberry Raisin, and the Guatemala Cup of Excellence. It adds that entrepreneur Paul Odom has founded Fonté when he purchased the equipments of the failing Beans Company Coffee."  Also PR Newswire in 2005 (not independent material) reports numerous client hotels and restaurants across the nation, in "Fonte Coffee Roaster Announces Record Growth, Inks Mammoth Deals With Luxury Hotels and Hip, New Restaurants" PR Newswire [New York] 06 Apr 2005: p1. Notable. -- do  ncr  am  22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nomination seems to be in favor of keeping the article?  Although it suggests two sources "aren't great", it notes a Boston Herald review and a Chicago Tribune article, and that the article also "is supported by regional coverage".  There is a non-sentence "WP:GNG" meaning the General Notability Guideline is met?  So, per the nomination the article should be kept?  I am not meaning to be facetious...I see that it is a nom to delete... but honestly this like some other AFD noms I have seen seems to be more in support of keeping.  In other AFDs i have seen votes like "Keep, per nom" and that would be justified here. -- do  ncr  am  13:15, 6 September 2014 (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.