Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Human Bean


 * 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. BD2412 T 03:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The Human Bean

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability since 2009. Google reveals many "location opening soon" announcements and coverage of local charity activity, but nothing that covers the organization with much depth. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ORGCRIT. There exist multiple, independent and significant reliable sources that this is an establishment. No business is inherently notable, but the fact that there are already 99 locations in 11 states, signals for me that we can rule out any problems of WP:PROMO, since this is already a thing. I would add that the possibility of WP:BIAS exists against inclusion of this chain because it is not useful for the average Wikipedian, since it mostly does not feature sit-down locations. StonyBrook (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that your argument for keeping hinges on the chain being inherently notable based on the number of locations it has. I was unable to find sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many routine announcements about locations opening or local fundraising activities are out there, but the definition of significant coverage applied per WP:ORGCRIT specifically excludes routine announcements. Though the article has a history of arguments regarding WP:PROMO, my nomination here isn't making any assumptions about that. I'm still not seeing anything that meets notability guidelines, in spite of the chain having a visible presence across the Western US. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are based on a policy that essentially seeks to excise blatant advertising from WP. While the original draft was spammy, I don't think that the present neutrally-worded article (which has been around for over 10 years) should suddenly get the boot while the business has meanwhile doubled in size. The article might technically pass WP:AUD, as I have just added a national source. I think deletion would defeat the WP:PURPOSE, as there will surely be readers seeking information on this chain and will now come up empty-handed. StonyBrook (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to? I'm honestly lost regarding that statement, as I feel I explained my stance that there is no significant coverage on the franchise that allows it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The additional source you added is another routine announcement. Personnel announcements are specifically listed in WP:ORG as trivial coverage, meaning they do not contribute to notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A careful reading of WP:ORG demonstrates that it was implemented as an additional requirement, over and above that of WP:GNG, in order to rebuff attempts of corporations and other organizations to game the system and use WP as a promotional tool. But if that guideline gets in the way of building a complete encyclopedia, then it should be ignored. That is why WP:ORG has a subsection with alternative criteria for inclusion, which I believe we can and should use here. StonyBrook (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that one purpose of WP:ORG is to prevent promotion does not mean that's its sole purpose. It is not a guideline that is only applied when WP:PROMO is suspected. That said, the validity of those guidelines is a moot point here since there's still no sources that meet WP:GNG, in my opinion. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:ORG, coverages are WP:ROUTINE. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man  &#124; (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. I found these newspaper articles about the chain:
 * "The Human Bean to compete for Valley's coffee drinkers" by Erica Sagon, The Arizona Republic (Feb 22, 2007)
 * "Recession doesn't slow coffee companies' growth" by Greg Stiles, The Statesman Journal (Feb 8, 2009)
 * "Tax issues cause closure of Human Bean shops" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (Dec 31, 2009)
 * "Human Bean revival plans remain alive" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (Jan 1, 2010)
 * "The Human Bean working on 9th location" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (March 31, 2018)
 * "Coffee Your Way at the Human Bean: Bandon store named Best Coffee" by Amy Moss Strong, The World (Coos Bay, Oregon) (Sept 28, 2019)
 * I think that the first two are especially strong. The Arizona Republic article is a 20-paragraph article specifically about the chain's expansion plans. The Statesman Journal article has seven paragraphs about the chain. I think that this is enough to demonstrate notability. I added these sources to the article page under a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the page can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to read the articles, but your description makes them sound like they've got enough depth for the article to meet WP:GNG. If we can get another opinion from someone with access I'll withdraw the nomination. Otherwise I'll wait for an admin to close and suggest removing the notability template in the talk page. Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! You can actually apply for free access to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card platform; you should check it out. :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG per the multiple published sources of presumed reliability linked above by Toughpigs. Carrite (talk) 10:53, 11 March 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.