Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Bros. 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 no consensus. Two relists and commenters still do not agree on whether the coverage is sufficiently independent and significant. RL0919 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Dutch Bros. Coffee]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Dutch Bros. Coffee}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dutch_Bros._Coffee Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Dutch Bros. Coffee}})

This is an article about an unremarkable coffee retailer. Its references are from Forbes which are expressly mentioned as insufficient to substantiate notability in the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria the remaining are of a similar business journal and the companies website itself. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. You need to read more carefully what Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria says about Forbes: it only calls out non-paid "Contributors", but [https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2016/06/15/the-coffee-cult-how-dutch-bros-is-turning-its-bro-istas-into-wealthy-franchisees this source] is by a paid member of Forbes' staff (a senior editor, in fact), and is subject to Forbes' independent editorial oversight. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment, isnt the main question here: do they make a good cup o' joe?{{=)}} Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Delete The company has a respectable amount of third-party coverage but not much in terms of actual content. It's mainly about new stores opening or acts of charity/fundraising. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Sourcing is not quite good enough:
  1. [https://www.dutchbros.com dutchbros.com] not independent.
  2. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2018/10/02/coffee-lovers-keep-an-eye-on-dutch-bros-they-just-got-a-big-investor/#533fa3d67b9c First Forbes article] not reliable; is "contributor" article.
  3. [https://books.google.com/books?id=h-Tms_WY-w0C&pg=PA29&dq=Dutch+Bros.+Coffee&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjav8zmvYvfAhUy0FkKHQ-ABxcQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=Dutch%20Bros.%20Coffee&f=false Conscious Branding] not significant coverage, brief example in a book about branding.
  4. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2016/06/15/the-coffee-cult-how-dutch-bros-is-turning-its-bro-istas-into-wealthy-franchisees/#69c1211c3694 Second Forbes article] good source!
  5. [https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/2014/08/how-dutch-bros-grew-from-a-pushcart-in-grants-pass.html?page=all Portland business journal] trade publications are not really good enough for notability, see WP:ORGIND
  6. [https://books.google.com/books?id=kk5ToHGC-jwC&pg=PA50&dq=Dutch+Bros.+Coffee&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjav8zmvYvfAhUy0FkKHQ-ABxcQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=Dutch%20Bros.%20Coffee&f=false Small Business Smarts]] not significant coverage, brief example in a book about small businesses.

:The WP:ORGCRITE bar of {{tq|significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject}} is not met. If we find additional sources, we should reevaluate this. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep I expanded it and the article seems now to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

:* Thanks for all the work improving the sourcing, {{re|Hyperik|p=}}! However, I am not entirely convinced these sources warrant a keep. Despite the large variety of sources, for the most part, the coverage seems borderline insignificant and the publications seem borderline reliable. Can you point to one or two sources that yield a definitive pass of WP:ORGCRITE? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

:*Comment Effort appreciated but content still doesn't explain why the company is actually notable. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.