Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Alley Espresso

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Alley Espresso

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Of the 12 sources on this page, 11 are the barest of passing mentions noting just this generic coffee shop's location at the market or its current or former owners. Only source 4 gives one full paragraph about this, a listicle mention for a local lifestyle website that the author likes its mocha. There is not substantive enough sourcing to pass WP:NORG. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Washington. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I watch coffee in Seattle articles, of which this is one. Nominator is correct that the sources give little info; however the sources are more than passing mentions in that they give facts that are beyond opinions. Sources establish that this place is part of a historically significant and touristed district in Seattle; it is liked among reviewers for being a coffee house, it is haunted, and it has a business history. This place is in reviews a couple of times a year since 2013. I would not call any single source "significant coverage", but collectively for the ~10 year period, there are 10 sources each reviewing this place, and the sum of all the sources is significant. As far as coffeehouses go, having 10 published brief reviews still puts a place among the top 1% for getting attention. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Once again, nominator flags an article for deletion immediately following creation with an assessment of current sourcing instead of all possible sourcing. I've expanded the entry with more sources, which range from business journals to books (fiction and nonfiction), newspapers (local, regional, and international), and food industry websites. There's enough coverage to give readers a description, operational history, and reception. I agree with Bluerasberry, the cumulative coverage counts. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage by the existing sources for a business as defined at WP:NBUSINESS sometimes falls between "trivial" and "substantial" but I don't agree with nom that it is "bare mention". Take the item from The National for instance: it is a full paragraph with comments on the building's history, the specific formulation of the drink available, and the model of the espresso machine in use! This isn't a routine bought/sold notice as we sometimes see in dodgy business articles. I think the weight of the many sources meets GNG. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really good starter article, well sourced and appears to meet GNG, perfectly acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 26 October 2022 (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.