Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochambo Coffee and Tea 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   delete. One two three... 03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rochambo Coffee and Tea House

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Thin business listing for a local coffee-house. The article contains no suggestion at all why it should have an article, nor does the padded list of 'sources' help clear up the issue, all but two being local newspaper articles--and one travel-guide listing--which mention but do not cover the subject. CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Might as well list the phone number and driving directions, too; it's a lightweight promo piece lacking even a whiff of qualifying notability. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Passes the general notability guidelines. Here is a source from and an article from OnMilwaukee.com. There is also a two paragraph mention at Nation's Restaurant News. I disagree that being only "locally" notable means that the article should be deleted. I agree with, who said in another AfD debate that ""Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance." Cunard (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't pass the General Notability Guidelines, as the very first item requires significant coverage. More to the point, the last listed item notes that the GNG 'establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion': rather than noting what merits mention in a true encyclopaedia article, you've instead scraped together whatever low-quality references you could find and bombarded the article as cover for its lack of merit. And your assertions regarding local importance aren't even coherent: 100% of what? As the local notability guideline has it, 'In order for a local interest to be notable, it must be covered by multiple, independent reliable sources away from its immediate locality'. Bluntly, why should anyone outside its immediate neighbourhood give a fig about this place: THAT is the question you haven't even attempted to answer. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete "local interest" does work for a single coffee shop. See WP:CORP. Many reasons in there, specifically "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". Most sources in the article are local. One is an incidental sentence in an article about the area it's in, and one is a listing in a travel guide (See WP:NTRAN - "Travel guides" cannot be used to establish notability, but information published in a reliable travel guide may be used to verify information. Self-published or other homemade travel guides are not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia guidelines..") 1 out of the 4 sentences is "Rochambo's closing time is at midnight." That says it all! An effort has been made to cite, but the sources are not sufficient. Bigger digger (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Local coverage is still coverage. the local notability guideline is a "proposed Wikipedia policy guideline". It carries no more weight than an essay. WP:NTRAN is "in the brainstorming stage". Neither are guidelines, policy, or pillars of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur, if we take away WP:NTRANS and WP:The locality one, we're left with WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Hopefully you're happy with these as guidelines to one of the pillars?
 * The coffee house has no significant coverage. Taking the sources as referenced in the article:
 * 1. Is a travel guide, it's not doing it's job if it doesn't mention it. Trivial.
 * 2. Is an article on teenagers too young to stay at home and too young for bars, so they go to coffee houses. Rochambo is one amongst many that is listed, and is certainly not the subject of the article.
 * 3. Is about coffee sales in Milwaukee with comments from many proprietors, again, Rochambo is not the subject and there is no depth to the two paragraphs that mention it.
 * 4. Is an article about the renewal of the area the coffee shop is in. Rochambo mention is, again, trvial and without depth.
 * 5. I can't view properly, more here. I'd suggest it's an article about tea that again happens to mention Rochambo.
 * 6. Is an article about it being redecorated. An article about a coffee shop being redecorated does not make it notable. There's also a mention about people meeting and getting married. Shock! People meet in a social environment and some of them get married. Again not a reason for notability.


 * I've copied this from WP:CORP as it's the part that this article is falling foul of.


 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.


 * This article would probably fit into wikitravel, but there's no reason for it to be in wp. It can't be expanded as there is nothing more to say. The creating editor has obviously worked hard to find sources but I'm afraid they don't add up to notability. Bigger digger (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the sources are passing mentions, but two are not. Those two prove that this coffeehouse meets WP:CORP. This article is about kids, but it also devotes much of its space to discussing this specific coffeehouse; more so than the other coffeehouses. The depth of coverage in this article is enough to be "significant". This article is about the renovation of Rochambo Coffee and Tea House, but that doesn't mean it's an unreliable, insignificant source. This twelve-paragraph article is solely devoted to Rochambo and its founders. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So you admit that first news story isn't actually about the subject of the article? That would take it off the table, it seems. Which leaves you, at best, with an article about architectural renovation, which, even if you accept that logic, means that you've failed the 'multiple' part of 'multiple, significant coverage'.


 * In all your efforts to scrape up every possible mention of this non-notable local business, you seem to have failed to ask yourself the most basic question: why is this particular local business worth mentioning? Mere existence is insufficient, as Wikipedia is not a business directory or city travel guide. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your cogent arguments have shown me that this local coffeehouse does indeed fail WP:CORP. I wish I could find more sources to establish this coffeehouse's notability, but I can't find any more. As a result, I agree that this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2009 (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.