Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vournas Coffee Trading


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Vournas Coffee Trading

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A family coffee importing company that has attracted no media attention other than in a few specialty trade papers. Arguably should be deleted as a CSD#A7 except that the article's "Advocacy" section might, at a great stretch, be seen as a claim to notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added more details on the advocacy, and also a line for certification. They're pretty well-known in the brewing world, as they're a top source of fair trade coffee. They're not usually covered in the media probably because the stories aren't as big as to get more people hooked to the story, but they're doing good things behind the scenes.Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've looked into gBooks Search and they've been referenced by 50 published books. To make sure they're all related, I've used the search operator "Vournas * trading" which would look for the exact match, with the asterisk as the wildcard. Almost all results were related to coffee. Other than Vournas Coffee Trading, no other company bares any likeness to their brand name in google search Gerhard.Angeles (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Gerhard.Angeles, I respectfully don't think you're using gBooks search the right way. When I look at the first ten books using your search, only one mentions "Vournas" at all and that's only in two passing phrases (see From Modern Production to Imagined Primitive: The Social World of Coffee, by Paige West). The others either aren't searchable or don't mention Vournas. The problem is that when you search for the phrase "Vournas * Trading", gBooks will show you a wide range of books that it believes might be relevant to the subject matter - in this case, some very interesting books on coffee.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Interesting. I've been using Google and gBooks for a while. The way Google search operators work is has been identical across their search products. I did try a few more with the search operators and most of the time, it does return very related books that may contain the entity (company, person, topic). I'm not entirely sure, though. Gerhard.Angeles (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at hits 11 through 20 of your list individually, search for "Vournas" in the text, and come back and share with us the text of any actual mentions you get. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looked into this, and you're right. Had to comb through different digital versions of the books and didn't find a match (0/3) Gerhard.Angeles(talk) 06:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment not sure if this counts as notable, but they're listed in Bloomberg, and the data was provided by S&P Market Intelligence. I've looked into 20 of the companies that are up for deletion, 1 of 20 companies (Afzal motors) had the same listing in Bloomberg. It might be something, but I don't know. They were also used by Tea & Coffee Trade Journal in 2009 as a resource for coffee packaging. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2018


 * Delete all of the mentions, in the books results above, the information I can find on the web, and everything cited in the article are passing at best or are from the company's website. Cannot find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fiftytwo thirty Would this be considered Court filing? Also, they were recognized by usaid, and is part of their Ethiopian Coffee Buying Manual, and also here. They're recognized by cdfa too. They're also included in the list of Coffee Manufacturers in Azusa Pacific University (Azusa Pacific)' COMM 111H Intro to Public Communications Course notes. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These are all passing mentions at best -- they list the company's name and nothing more. In order to be notable, there needs to be substantial, independent, third party coverage (all three, at once). Everything about this company except from its own website simply says that it is a coffee trading firm. In order to be notable, there needs to be coverage that explains the company in depth from an outsiders. See WP:CORPDEPTH. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted here. Although, they've been mentioned a lot of times by coffee-related websites, which of course are niched markets. They have a profile in Wallstreet, are mentioned by the Tea & Coffee journal, has several accreditation, and are recognized by the government. With all due respect, I don't think Forbes or New York Times would do a full-blown article on a coffee trading company, even with a business their scale. I'll leave the decision up to the community moderators. I have nothing more to add here. Deguzmanjohn73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2018 (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.