Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee Party USA

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. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Party USA

[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)

Almost off sources are from 2010, including a few self published sources. It's probably worth keeping it with a bit of cleanup, but I'd like to get a few other opinions on whether it should be kept/or deleted. Swil999 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possible speedy keep) - unambiguously meets the general notability guidelines, with significant coverage from the Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, CSM, AP, etc. deletion is not cleanup, and even though their most significant coverage is from 2010, notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. MarginalCost (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Corn cheese (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that an article topic still has as much current coverage as it may have garnered in the past, so the fact that the sources are from 2010 is not a problem — as long as enough of the sources are reliable, we simply don't care if they're newer or older. There are an incredible number of notable topics — dead or retired people, defunct organizations or companies, etc. — that we could not keep articles about at all if the notability requirement was that they were still getting coverage in the current news cycle. Even most former presidents of the United States would have to be deleted if that were the rule. Which is why it's not. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS. Subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even I, a dedicated tea drinker sipping a cup of loose leaf Formosa Ooolong brewed in a Yixing ware pot as I edit, endorse the notability of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2019 (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.