Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse

[edit]
Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local coffeehouse, no coverage external to local Baltimore papers. Lacks significant coverage in this regard. (?) czar 18:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This coffeehouse is notable due to its extremely rare existence as an Anarchist collective in business. There are companies in existence which practice Anarchist economics where owners and workers are not held separate. Such companies are somewhat more common in the Latin America though, despite legal challenges. Ceosad (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the latter, but for the former, sources? Right now, it's all local to Baltimore, like I can find for any major coffeehouse in any major city. czar 00:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition of the sources given by Oakshade, the Baltimore magazine has written in-depth about the coffee house for multiple times. See this and this. This book is about anarchist enterprises and it mentions Red Emma's. Ceosad (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Baltimore Sun, Next City (which is not local to Baltimore) and Baltimore City Paper have very in-depth coverage of this place.[1][2][3][4] As far as citing the essay - not policy or guideline - WP:LOCAL, even if it was all "local" coverage (it isn't) it's completely subjective as to what a reader outside a locale of a topic will find encyclopedic. I've never lived anywhere near Baltimore and I know of this place as it attracts nationally and internationally renowned authors, academics and others as speakers. Even the national guide published by The Nation, The Nation Guide to the Nation, goes into detail of it.[5] --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL, even if it was all "local" coverage (it isn't) it's completely subjective as to what a reader outside a locale of a topic will find encyclopedic

Not really—extra-local coverage is an easy indicator of non-local notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience. LOCAL just explains it in more detail. czar 13:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry-picking a clause buried in a single guideline page that contradicts both letter and spirit of our major guidelines such as WP:GNG is a classic case of WP:GAMETYPE. Even if we were to entertain such a specific sentence it states "at least one regional, statewide" source counts. The Baltimore Sun is one of the nation's regional newspapers with subcribership in multiple states, beyond just statewide Maryland, with bureaus in Washington, DC and Philadelphia. [6] --Oakshade (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please. LOCAL says it descends from AUD. You didn't like the essay, so have the guideline. You can't have it both ways. The point is that the coverage should be known outside the locality, such as a coffeehouse being the center of a movement or for having nationally renowned goods. In both cases, the sources would assert as much. I don't see the other links amounting to more than routine coverage of a specialty shop. czar 16:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if you want to get all WP:LAWYER and continue WP:GAMETYPE, even the essay WP:LOCAL and the sub-clause of the sub-guideline WP:AUD explain that the coverage audience can be regional and the coverage in this case is beyond regional. WP:ROUTINE defines coverage as "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" which of course the coverage of this topic is beyond the scope of. --Oakshade (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you know what those things mean because you're doing more of them yourself... The spirit of the audience guideline is really straightforward: that beyond the local coverage—the coverage that you would expect a city's coffeehouse to get in newspapers related to the city—there needs to be external coverage. You could argue (I think incorrectly) that the external coverage is significant, but instead you're somewhere in the weeds in how Baltimore papers are really regional and how the letter of the policy technically allows them (lawyering). In practice, I don't think there is any dispute that Baltimore papers should be held apart for this discussion. Then we're left with the sources that remain, and they are much more sparse than they have been puffed up to be. I went through them below. I encourage you to make your point at AfD and add little else—the endless personal accusations are inflammatory and unhelpful. czar 15:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the nomination, this is simply one local company who has local news stories and attention, none of it establishes anything else but a local tourist guides for locally known business which violates WP:NOT policy, and it allows us to remove anything unsuitable and this is, since everything is literally trivial and unconvincing, especially since this still all is founded in local news stories. None of that is actual substance and ee should not mistake it as otherwise. Once we start becoming a YellowPages business guide, we're damned, regardless of anything else.
As it is, this article itself cares to specify only information suitable for their own company 'About Us" hence also emphasizing the WP:NOT policy concerns. Anything trivial such as "It satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:GNG" means nothing because that's actually one of the foundations of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a business PR webhost" and there's nothing to suggest exceptions here. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument here to demonstrate WP:NOT is a reason to delete an article that passes our fundamental notability guidelines such as GNG. Never have I seen a user type, "It satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:GNG" means nothing." Coverage has been shown to be non-trivial, adhering to the essay WP:LOCAL and there's zero evidence provided that this article is just "suitable for their own company".
SwisterTwister, are you stalking me just because minutes ago I argued against your strangely identical WP:GNG-doesn't-count reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwolla? [7]--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTA? Any explanation of how a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic "Fails WP:GNG"? --Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "just a bookshop", it is a bookshop without claim for fame or notability. It does nothing special and anarchist bookshop/restaurants/etc. are by far not so rare as you suggest. The Banner talk 19:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your subjective WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE opinion is noted, but that doesn't answer the question of how this "Fails WP:GNG" as it's beed subject to significant coverage by reliable sources. If you don't like that there's been significant coverage, I suppose you can complain to the Baltimore Sun and other publications. --Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I complain now about your highly aggressive way of replying. You try to crush everybody who dares to have an opinion that you do not like. Very annoying and in breach of WP:AGF. The Banner talk 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion rationale was just "Non-notable local shop. Fails WP:GNG" and we're still waiting for an explanation that counters the multiple in-depth coverage pieces that have been presented by the keep voters or those already in the article. While you might be annoyed at such, I don't see the WP:AGF. Having disagreements with other editors is not an excuse to make baseless claims at them.--Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unique" is not what gets notability or anything close to it (in that case, there would be hundreds of thousands of "unique companies"; also, the sources are simply news stories including from its own local publications, that shows nothing else but local interests, not actual notability in an encyclopedia; and it certainly is not convincing otherwise in the fact it currently exists only for "local tourist guides". SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this wasn't a notable business, then it wouldn't have received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources and passing WP:GNG. And some sources in the article that is their own publications doesn't magically mean the significant coverage from independent sources don't exist anymore. --Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This business/organization does not get its notability solely from being a "unique" coffeehouse. There is a wide coverage about it being an "infoshop", and thus having a role in American (grassroots) politics. Red Emma's seems to be considered as a well known case of such organization. Some additional references are here and here. See also the source I linked earlier. There are various academic sources that mention Red Emma's, and they are not just "local tourist guides". Ceosad (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those two extra links fit the definition of passing mentions, and the third is indeed a local tourist guide. If it's used for significant coverage, then it follows that most other entries in the guide are notable too, but we know that they (as well) are not. czar 16:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those two extra links in which one of them is more than a "passing mention" are in addition to the in-depth significant coverage on this topic, thus even further establishing notability. --Oakshade (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop with those. There's lots of coverage. It's notable. --doncram 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review. As the same links, previously discussed, are being reposted, I'd like to recap the coverage unturned. (1) A variety of local news from local Baltimore papers (local coffeeshop opens new location, is rated best in the area, etc.) and a local travel guide. (Yes, Johns Hopkins is local to Baltimore too.) This is the regular coverage we would expect any city coffeehouse to get from its local papers/guide—we don't create articles on recommended coffeehouses in every city of the world, only those with external coverage with which we can write an article. (2) Limited coverage from papers outside Baltimore—best of which is the Next City article on co-ops, but the rest are passing mentions or nothing with enough depth to write a detailed article (such as the Nation blurb, infoshop links). The Publisher's Weekly short article about the store opening during the Freddie Gray protests doesn't have enough meat for more than a sentence and the Melville House article is a retread (MH is a publisher, not the same editorial process). A pile of mentions in a Google Books link does not make significant coverage under the GNG. You would need to show what exactly outside papers have said in depth about this place in order to warrant writing an article about it. If all we've got is that it does things for Baltimore and is an example of a co-op, we're looking more at a redirect to an article about prominent co-ops than a separate article on a bookshop. czar 15:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is irritating to be dismissed like this. It seems to me that the deletion nominator is FALSE in their assertion that the links are the same as previously discussed. The links are not the same as earlier posted by Oakshade, anyhow.
And statement that "Johns Hopkins is local to Baltimore too" is useless. What I said was, if JHU Magazine is its alumni magazine, then it is a national (in fact it is an international) magazine, which is a true fact. --doncram 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WALLOFTEXT aside, we've already discussed the merits of the sources - national, regional and local. Just repeating an argument in longer form isn't going to change anything. It's time to drop the stick and move on. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
/me looks at the stick in Oakshades hand... The Banner talk 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was Czar who began a new thread of a rehash of the same argument. If you want to comment on everyone continuing a needless argument, I'll actually accept that as this AfD has gone on way too long. But you can't single out just the one editor you disagree with. --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the others uses such an aggressive style as you do. And that style is not a style that encourages discussion and debate. Every time somebody comes with another opinion than the one you desire, hoppa: you come down like a ton of bricks. The Banner talk 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep commenting at me, even when I'm responding to another editor. Classic do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. Not only is it aggressive, it's kind of creepy. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is about ready to be closed Keep or No consensus, and ask for someone to do that, just to end this misery. Waters are getting a bit muddied, but it appears to me that the deletion nominator is more responsible than anyone else for bringing down the quality/civility/enjoyability of this AFD discussion, FWIW. The deletion nominator started out fast with comments on other people's comments. Tip for winning AFDs: don't do that. :) Another editor has commented as many times (but don't count their replies to deletion nominator's comments on their !vote). And another tip for winning AFDs: don't make false statements in your comments about others, or be too glib in dismissing them. :) --doncram 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. for promotionalism. This is a clear G11, though I'm reluctant to use it this far into the discussion. Notability is irrelevant when an article is added for the purpose of advertising, or of promoting the views of the organization. Sympathy with their views is irrelevant. Propaganda for worthy causes is no concern of an encyclopedia . If the organization were very highly notable it might be worth rewriting, but this is at most borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the article was started with the purpose of advertising. It was created in 2005 by User:Nihila who is no longer active but mostly had edits to radicalism-related articles and who's brief history doesn't seem to indicate they were a promoter/advertiser of some kind nor connected to this topic. Through the next 11 years it has mostly been edited and expanded by the typical mix of established editors and some IPs. If somebody at some point in those 11 years added promotional elements, that can can be corrected through regular editing and doesn't change the significant coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Red Emma's is the largest worker cooperative in the state of Maryland, and one of the largest horizontally-managed, consensus-based businesses in the United States. This particular coop's model is a point of reference for a lot of other coops and cooperative hopefuls. Article could be made more useful by focusing on these structural elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4004:E553:2C95:DCD3:852E:237E (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More nonlocal coverage: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13140 (just for informational purposes, as I am involved in the project in question as a cofounder.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfduda (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The coverage cited demonstrates that GNG and WP:ORG are satisfied. I am not impressed by DGG's claim that the article must be deleted despite coverage satisfying GNG because "Notability is irrelevant when an article is added for the purpose of advertising, or of promoting the views of the organization." Notability is not irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia covering notable subjects. Anyone can edit an article about a notable subject and correct any bias introduced by a fan of the subject, or any opponent of the subject. Edison (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon significant coverage in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on above evidence of notability that this article is notable. The article does have some issues with promotional language, so I have flagged it and started working to update the language in the opening paragraph for NPOV. Here is a diff of the work I've done so far. Siankevans (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - None of these have actually acknowledged how WP:NOT is relevant here, general notability guidelines mean nothing compared to policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The merits of applying WP:NOT were acknowledged in detail and there hasn't been a convincing argument that it merits deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this article could be considered advertising since it has been clearly started for good faith reasons, as Oakshade already pointed out above. There is no reason to keep repeating these same old arguments for over and over again. Yes, the article is crappy and badly written but AfD is not cleanup. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:GOODFAITH. Ceosad (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again WP:NOT applies because it explicitly states "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, tourist or local guide or webhost of services", and the fact this article cares to go to specifics about amenities and what you can get "services" there, that's best for only their own websites or local advetisements, not an actual encyclopedia. WP:NOT is the highest that policy can get and we use said policy every day, so anything else means nothing. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you haven't given a convincing argument of demonstrating that WP:NOT means this article that easily passes WP:GNG has to be deleted. As with any article, any advertisement element that some user over the years might have added can be corrected through regular editing. As Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is also policy, states, if regular editing can improve a page then that should be done instead of deletion. In this case, Siankevans has already made improvements removing what looks like advertising elements during this AfD. Just repeating you think WP:NOT means this article should be deleted isn't going to change anything--Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT still applies in that this is still a business listing and as was suggested earlier (thus "perfection is not required!" means nothing when this is and solely exists as advertising), the company itself is in fact asking for help about this article, so notability honestly be damned, as WP:NOT is specifically essential when the company itself is footing advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this article was not created as "footing advertising" and most certainly our policies of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy apply to all articles. "WP:NOT" aren't magic letters you can summons to delete articles you don't like or just because at some point over an 11 year existence somebody might have added verbiage that you interpret as advertising, which you've offered zero case that this was created as such in this entire Afd. --Oakshade (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you now come up with a version of "Ignore all rules and keep this article". The Banner talk 10:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument as the reason to keep has been the in-depth national and regional coverage thus easily demonstrating passing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and that WP:NOT hasn't been at all demonstrated as a reason to ignore all rules to delete this article.--Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is this topic having received significant coverage from multiple national and regional sources not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH? I, as well as most people here, just don't see the "blatant POV issues" being claimed, which of course deletion policy stipulates should be corrected through regular editing instead of deletion if it exists anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promo sampling: "The space also provides free computer access to the Baltimore community, wireless internet and a variety of socially aware and radical events including film screenings, political teach-ins, and community events." (right out of a sales brochure), "Collective meetings are open to the public every Sunday (except the first of the month) at 7pm at the store." (blatant advertising), "The classes are taught along the principles of "horizontal organizing, collaborative learning and participatory education", and it's guaranteed that the teachers are not "y'know, fascists", etc., as well as phrases like "stringent academic tradition". And then I'm done discussing. You've made your point, I've made mine. Put the stick down. Onel5969 TT me 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't care for that tone which was added years after the straight-forward article was created, not because it was advertising but it was un-encyclopedic and not sourced anyway so I've removed that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Emma%27s_Bookstore_Coffeehouse&oldid=1089521746"