Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme 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 of the debate was No consensus Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimme Coffee
Prodded (by me) as "Non-notable coffee shop." Prod tag removed with the edit summary comment of "It has been proposed that this article be deleted because, according to some, Gimme Coffee is a "non-notable coffeeshop". Merriam Webster defines notable as "worthy of note" and in NY, Gimme is." The initial reason I prodded this page is that there is no real notability stated in the article. However, looking at the press page on their Web site, they do list a few publications in which they are mentioned. I'm not 100% certain this meets WP:CORP though. In any case, I thought it's worth an AfD discussion. If the article is kept, then it at least needs to do more to state notability. ScottW 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm a native New Yorker who hangs out with coffee-holics, and I've never heard of it. I'd have to go through the list of sources to figure it out- the NYT mention doesn't count, as it's just a very passing reference, but I'm not sure about the others.Captainktainer * Talk 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral. The criteria for this is per WP:CORP, which states that a company must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I found no coverage in mainstream media apart from one article in The Sydney Morning Herald, where Gimme Coffee is mentioned twice. Kevin 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After a second look on their press page they do have a reasonable amount of media coverage. Unfortunately, "non-trivial" is quite subjective, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. Kevin 12:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is where my uncertainty lies. There are certainly several substantial articles in the local media, however, my local newspaper eventually will do a few articles on every restaurant/cafe in town--most of them not-notable. The most notable articles in the global media section are mostly brief mentions. Do these constitute non-trivial works? I would have a lot less trouble keeping this article if it had any sort of encyclopedic content or substantial edits. As it stands at the moment, I'm not sure this article could be made encyclopedic. ScottW 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NN as above. ProhibitOnions 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:CORP, see their press page, that's definitely multiple independent mentions. This is a minor cofeeshop  franchise chain, definitely notable.  Ok, admittedly, the articles on their web page are copies, and I don't have the issues in question (and web searching doesn't seem to work), but I just don't believe they'd have the balls to lie that much on their web page.  Mango juice talk 12:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor point of clarification: It's a small chain, but I don't believe it's actually a franchise. ScottW 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I changed my comment. Mango juice talk 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, does not assert any particular notability. Any USAns who are familiar with this coffee shop chain can probably supply me with more information. J I P  | Talk 18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple, yes. Non-trivial?  I doubt it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Chain of three coffee shops? Gimme a break. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there are six locations (article only lists five though). ScottW 22:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. 3 stores?!?  Being in New York doesn't make one notable, even though 87.3% of New Yorkers appear to believe that. --- GWO
 * keep please it is notable enough for wikipedia Yuckfoo 22:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence when I initially nominated this article. However after thinking a bit about it, it seems to be at best borderline WP:CORP. My biggest problem though is that, at the present, I don't see this article expanding to something encyclopedic. So I lean delete ScottW 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing of note in article, easily recreated if or when the chain ever becomes notable. Ewlyahoocom 20:23, 8 May 2006 (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.