Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudsons 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 keep. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hudsons Coffee

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

First a speedy, then a prod, now an afd. Apparent advertisement for a company with no evidence of notability. Jakew 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable and has received extensive news coverage. Dbromage  [Talk]  11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbromage. Article needs to be cleaned up, but multiple independent sources seem to be enough to establish notability. --Onorem♠Dil 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete on grounds of WP:SPAM per Jakew. Take away the peacock language, and its clear this article qualifies for deletion under Notability (organizations and companies). Citing advertorials as proof of notability does not justify keeping this article. --Gavin Collins 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Inside Business (the 5th link) is not an advertorial. It is the leading business program on the ABC, the government broadcaster which does not allow advertising. Dbromage  [Talk]  10:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an interview, it's a primary source. We need secondary sources to establish notability. See WP:RS and WP:CORP.Jakew 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in Australia. Golfcam 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't see how you get that this is an advert - it's a straightforward of what the company does and how they differ from other companies. While it may need expansion, it's no more of an advert than Microsoft. With 269 unique hits on Australian Google including plenty of bona fide media coverage, I'm satisfied that they're notable in their market —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  19:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The first sentence is fine. Unfortunately that's the only good part. The rest of the text is entirely dedicated to this firm's offerings. (Actually, to quote from the article, it describes the "exciting options" on offer, a phrase that reeks of marketing departments.) Exciting or otherwise, these are only of interest to potential customers (and then only just). But encyclopaedic information is strangely absent. Where is such information as who founded it and when? What's their history? What's their legal status (privately held, etc)? Annual revenue? Number of employees? What controversies (if any) have they been involved with? It seems that these facts were overlooked in the "excitement" over all these wonderful "options"... Jakew 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the option you're looking for is called or any of the other helpful cleanup tags to be found at WP:TM.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. In the absence of notability, there is no reason to have an article at all. Jakew 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The concerns that "the rest of the text is dedicates to this firm's offering" or "encyclopaedic information is strangely absent" for things like founding, history, legal status, revenue are not ones of notability per se, but rather further information to improve the article. Sorry, but unless you're disputing the assertions of notability above, then I'm going to say you're barking up the wrong tree.  The things you're asking for are not deletion concerns, they're article improvement concerns.  So again, you want something from WP:TM instead of AFD.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't explain my thoughts clearly. In my comment above (of 21:53), I was addressing Iridescent, who did not understand how this can be seen as an advert. Thus, I showed that it contains information useful only for advertising, and I gave examples of the kind of encyclopaedic content that might make the article worth rescuing (the presence and ability of third-party sources to answer these questions would also help establish notability). The presence of the former and the absence of the latter make this article merely an advertisement. And per WP:CORP, if no notable content would remain after removing advertising, then the article is a deletion concern. Jakew 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I noted the way to get the content fixed in such a case is not deletion, but rather seeking improvement though other means. I'm sorry if this comes across as offensive, but AFD is not cleanup, and I'm not sure why you're so resistant to the idea that there were other options.  Even the section of WP:CORP suggests cleanup as the first order of business.  Are you arguing that you shouldn't do things like look for sources to further expand the article?  Me, I'd have checked, found that, and said to myself "Why here's a fine article to use to improve this page" and if I didn't feel like improving it myself, left a note on the talk page.  FrozenPurpleCube 12:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I removed the "array of exciting options" line, now needs to be expanded to include more than what's on the menu.  Citi Cat   ♫ 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dbromage's comment and also Golfcam's as it is notable in that region.--JForget 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete What's on the menu is not notable. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to indicate any notability otherwise,But let's see what can be written from the sources listed above. DGG (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of the most major coffee chains in Australia, and it's swimming in potential references. Rebecca 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - subject appears to be sufficiently notable. Addhoc 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 12:30, 29 August 2007 (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.