Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espresso Vivace

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 no consensus. There seems to be an agreement that this page is promotional or has been promotional in the past, but there is no consensus on the question of whether it is so bad that the article should be deleted as opposed to just cleaned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Vivace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. There are plenty of source for expanding and improving this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the sources already shared, founder David Schomer is a regular speaker on the coffee conference circuit. I have seen him a couple of times in New York at conferences speaking on behalf of Vivace and Seattle coffee culture. Conference listings and presentations are not the usual reliable sources but the fact of these presentations establishes that Vivace is more than a local coffeehouse. They do consulting and advising for other coffeehouses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really promotional. Even if notable it needs a thorough rewrite, otherwise we might as well delete it as G11. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They might be notable, in which case an article could be written. But the first step is to remove this. If an erticle is fundamentally promotional to the point it would take a rewrite, it should be deleted. That's the only way we can make an impression of the promotional editors.Otherwise, any attempt to help them is doing their work for them, while they get paid for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason we can’t clean it up is you want to punish the article’s creator? Per WP:DENY or something? Even though they haven’t edited since 2008? And were’t blocked? Or are you accusing one of us of something? Who are the “promotional editors” you want to send a message to? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not punish, but to deter similar editing. I agree that's not ideal, but we have no other effective method, as long as we remain committed to "Anyone can edit". DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully support that if I thought that would genuinely deter COI editing. I just don't believe that a PR flack working for Home Depot is going to notice that an article about a Seattle coffee shop was created in 2008 and deleted in 2017, and therefore they won't try to add advertising about Home Depot's new lawn mowers. The fact that the article existed for 9 years is encouragement enough, assuming they are even paying attention to this article. If they were, I'd hope they notice that it gets only 300 page views a month. If a company is paying $2 for 1,000 ad impressions, this works out to about about $8 worth of advertising per year. They would spend 2-3 person hours, at a cost of $50 to $100, for $8 worth of "free" ads. I wish they were paying attention enough to understand that. But I don't have any evidence that they do. COI editors know little to nothing about Wikipedia, and they don't learn the history and mistakes of other COI editors. They just jump in, write a biased article, and in the case of Espresso Vivace, it hangs around for years because hardly anybody is even aware it exists. Deleting this article won't prevent a future COI editor from doing the same thing.

And that is why there is nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that lends much support to deleting this article on those grounds. The subject obviously has received significant coverage enough coverage to meet GNG, or WP:CORPDEPTH, or you could say David Schomer meets WP:ANYBIO and we should redirect there. Regardless of how we go about cleaning it up, the only applicable guideline here is "AfD is not cleanup." I am sympathetic to the idea of discouraging using Wikipedia for advertising, and getting rid of this minor article would be a small price to pay if it helped, but I don't see any evidence that it would help in a case like this. I'd change my mind if I did see evidence, or if we had clear guidelines saying promotional content was sufficient grounds for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What will deter promotional editors is consistency in removing promotional articles. Even good faith but naive editors base their content in the promotional style , because there is so much of it they think it's what is wanted here. It's not this specific article by itself that will have the effect. but that can be argued against doing any such deletion, with the result that we'd delete none of them. To remove them all, we haveto go one at a time.

Keep — Notability is met several times over. Multiple high-quality sources make a good case for each of the following, any one of which is sufficient to keep the article:
1. Establishing and popularizing modern American latte art
2. Popularizing boutique espresso in Seattle and across the US
3. Training and influencing baristas across the US, establishing norms that are taken for granted now
4. Technical innovations in bean roasting and espresso brewing methods and equipment
5. Widespread acknowledgement of David C. Schomer as a pioneer in espresso small business entrepreneurship, foodie culture, and barista techniques

A good case could be made that we should have a bio about Schomer with a large section about Espresso Vivace, rather than an article about Espresso Vivace with a large section about Schomer (one or the other but not both), but that's a question of how to clean up the article. All that matters to us here is that it passes the bar for notability. WP:G11 doesn't apply because fundamentally, the article contents are fine. It's merely a matter of achieving a more neutral tone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the major issue here. it's promotionalism. If something doesn't pass WP:NOT, there's no point in even consideringthe notability guidelines, DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a subject is notable, then we should keep and improve the article. Reduce it to a stub, if need be, to remove promotional content, but deletion is not necessary. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to know which content is promotional. If someone says the tone is promotional, OK, then please fix it. But the basic facts? Which ones? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidence for notability in several books: "has set the standard for excellence for lattes in Seattle and throughout the United States" [1], "[the] famed Seattle cafe Espresso Vivace" [2], "Espresso Vivace, renowned for its devotion to perfection in coffee" [3] and more. If this was just covered in one or two guidebooks (which it is, including Fodor's Seattle, Lonely Planet Washington, Oregon & the Pacific Northwest and Not for Tourists Guide to Seattle) I'd be less strident, but what exists here is actually something that has changed American culture and can be documented in an encylopedic fashion. Based on my research for this reply, I'm fine with Dennis Bratland's suggestion to swap the articles around so the main subject is David Schomer. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business page is an excellent example of advocating the business and that means WP:Not advocate, a basic policy and this policy supersedes WP:GNG, as the latter's first psrsgraph states. Notability is not relevant now that this is what lies between preserving the encyclopedia or an ordinary business. Trampton (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving the encyclopedia? Wikipedia will not survive if we don't delete this now? If that's the only way to save Wikipedia, then by all means, we must. But I kind of wonder how Wikipedia survived for the last nine years?

WP:NOTADVERTISING could supersede WP:GNG since policy trumps a guideline, but this policy doesn't do that. In fact WP:NOTADVERTISING explicitly tells us to follow those guidelines when it says, "See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." If we do as the WP:NOT policy says and follow the advice on advertising, we are told to do three steps, in order: first, clean it up (per WP:NOTCLEANUP, obviously), second, remove the advertising content, and third, delete the whole article, if steps 1 and 2 didn't resolve the issue.

There simply isn't any policy or guideline that says "nuke promotional article on sight without even trying to fix the problem." Numerous polices and guidelines say clearly to not do that. Editing policy goes into even greater detail about how and why we operate this way, and WP:CANTFIX spells this out even more clearly. Don't nuke content that is fixable. You could claim it is harmful in its current state, but that doesn't square with the nine year history of this article having not caused any detectable harm. Or you could say "delete this article in spite of policy, because WP:IAR". You can always say IAR. But it's inaccurate to say that WP:NOT or any other policy justifies deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and to date, I have not found any article that is "intellectually independent". Invariably the references either talk about the founder, Schomer, which this article is *not* about, or the references rely on interviews with Schomer. For those that have expressed a KEEP !vote, can you please provide links to any two articles that meet the criteria for establishing notability and meet the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND? -- HighKing⁺⁺17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be near-complete agreement that redirecting Espresso Vivace to David Schomer to is at least as good as redirecting David Schomer to Espresso Vivace. I favor expanding Espresso Vivace first, and thinking about moving or renaming later, but it's really six of one or half a dozen of the other. Espresso Vivace has a broader scope than a Schomer bio, making it easier to cover the entire topic in one article and avoid multiple articles about these subjects, which would simply annoy our readers for no good reason. This is an editorial decision dealing with cleanup, outside the scope of AfD. Note that a long interview with a subject in a respected publication is evidence of notability: it is independent, and it is not self-published. The fact that a major publication will devote large amounts of space to printing the a subject's answers to questions is all the more proof that that person is notable.

The following more than meet GNG or CORPDEPTH:

Here is evidence for the claims to notability that I enumerated in my previous comment above. Standards such as WP:CREATIVE don't rely on a minimum quantity of coverage, such as article size or number of articles, but only on the existence of achievements or innovations in a field. These below are sufficient to keep, independent of meeting GNG (above):

Many sources credit Vivace with various innovations, but some take issue with that:

http://thesheridanpress.com/70176/baristas-connect-latte-art/

Per the due weight policy, we focus on the widespread consensus while giving proportionate attention to dissenting views. Also, Schomer's book Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques IS self-published. Many reliable sources cite it, but we need to treat it as a WP:SPS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may well have a promotional tone. But the way to fix promotional tone is by cleaning up the article, and AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is clearly notable. At that point, we keep and scrub. I've picked up the strong sense that there's an aura pervading AfD these days of 'articles on businesses are inherently not notable and should be deleted', and the fact that some editors above are explicitly stating "notability doesn't matter" is extremely concerning. As Dennis Bratland points out, this is not a policy-based argument to delete, and I hope the closing admin considers that accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon consideration, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD per a review of available sources, and also retain per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded after this discussion was initiated (diff), and concerns regarding promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I quote WP:GNG:

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy and WP:AUD's same page says Except matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, routine restaurant reviews, passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. Copyediting isn't an excuse for deleting an advertisement against WP:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which in turn say: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. These policies describe very clearly that we need an article in a good condition without promotion, and the article has those promotions without any proposals on how to fix it. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree with the notion that this article could potentially be renamed to David Schomer, becoming a biographical article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not aware that notability overrides G11 spam, and although the argument has been made that it could be cleaned up, no one has actually attempted to do so, unsurprising given that the refs are mainly PR pieces. And I don't acceptthat spam is OK if it doesn't get many views, either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This little place had a huge impact on the Seattle coffee scene that was the creative drive behind much larger companies, such as Starbucks as we know it today. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to Dennis_Bratland for listing the references above. But. As I already stated above, references must be intellectually independent in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also stated that interviews with Schomer or their staff or their customers/suppliers/etc generally do *not* meet the criteria. I'm not sure if my summary of policy/guidelines was misinterpreted but, of the first six you list under the heading of "more than meet GNG and CORPDEPTH", three significantly rely on quotations and interviews and therefore fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. But I believe that this seattletimes.com reference meets the criteria as it has (in my opinion) sufficient independent opinion. The remaining reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. None of the remaining references (excluding the books) meet the criteria either but since I do not have full access to some of the quoted books (and given that it is clear that Schomer is revered by knowledgeable baristas), I would be far more inclined to create a David Schomer article since *all* of the references invariably talk about David and he appears to be better known than this business. -- HighKing⁺⁺16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are published in independent sources with a policy of fact checking. They are not presumed to be mere mouthpieces for the businesses they write about. If a business makes a boast about itself, reliable sources seek verification. The New York Times, for example cites first Veraci sources for their influence on roasting and brewing methods, then quotes a barista on the other side of the country who is independent of the subject to corroborate that. Mark Pendergrast's book similarly quotes independent sources to verify the claims, and that book is published by Basic Books, a venerable and highly respected publisher with a reputation for integrity and fact checking. We don't expect sources to be omniscient and infallible, but they make a reasonable effort to get the facts right and that is our definition of a reliable source. Several of these sources have a consensus about this company's influence, and the due weight policy says we give that mainstream consensus the greatest weight, even if the mainstream consensus says a lot of nice things about the subject. There isn't always a hidden dark side to every single topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry but this is simple advertising. The refs do not establish notability. What they establishes is that there is a coffee shop in Seattle (probably serving good coffee) operated by an individual who is very good at selling himself and his ideas to others. Well, that is fine, but it doesn't make for notability - it's an advert. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement here is false. The refs to not merely say the coffee shop exists or is merely good. They say it is influential in several different areas. Do you dispute the sources? Are you saying the NYT, NBC, LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc, or the books by Mark Pendergrast and Robert W. Thurston are not reliable sources? Or that you have other sources that dispute the claims to notability? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something I wanted to importantly contribute here is to show the actual extent of promotion here and the unsuccessful attempts at improving this article: Once, Twice and Thrice. It's not possible to be both an independent neutral encyclopedia who is uninvolved to company interests also support their own publicity along with including each time as linked, a devoted section to promoting a businessman's own self gains. The precedence here is our own encyclopedia principles. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're complaining that the article describes things that ast the subject in a positive light? If we refused to include this type of content, then the article wouldn't contain any mention of the things that make the subject notable. It would be like the bio of Isaac Newton omitting any mention of his discovery of the laws of gravity because it's "promotional". Featured Articles about contemporary businesses, such as Panavision or Cracker Barrel are a chronological history of the subject's innovations, influences on their industries, and expansions. They also include contractions and reorganizations, which even in stub form, are mentioned in the Espresso Vivace article. You're attempting to argue for a universal principle but it's clearly arbitrary. The standard you're using against this article would justify the deletion of these FAs and many others. NeXT, or On the Origin of Species, you name it. Wikipedia is not prejudiced against articles that cast their subject in a positive light if that content is a reflection of independent reliable sources, which we presume have a policy of editorial oversight and fact checking. You're framing this as if the content all comes from publications written by the subject, and that is false. The basis is independent sources known for their integrity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what SwisterTwister said, the article is just simply too promotional and a huge advertisement for a coffee shop that has faded out of the spotlight. The failed attempts to remove promotion have not helped either. Sources are lacking in sufficient content to prove any true notability. FiendYT ★
- See WP:SURMOUNTABLE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. If people feel it should be TNTd, then that can happen. The time to delete something notable is when much of past versions constitute an attack page, not for being "promotional", which as pointed out above is a dubious claim.L3X1 (distænt write) 17:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1 Actually no, the policy as quoted above is that anything is deleted when the deletion policy says deletion is clearly needed. 3 unsuccessful attempts is no better why should we trust a 4th time? Also, an attack page is not solely the criteria at Wal: Deletion policy, as several things besides "an attack page" can be deleted such as advertising, copyvio, BLP, etc. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.