Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javette 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Javette Coffee

I am the author of the Javette article. (I read that I could remove the prod tag once I edited the article, which I did extensively.) I have attempted to use the examples of Sanka, Nestle's, and Starbucks to edit this article, knowing that these are acceptable entries. Could someone explain the difference between Javette and these mentioned articles so that this article can be improved upon. Thanks. --Javette Coffee 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one (there may be more than one) difference that comes to my mind between Javette and the articles you mentioned. There are no rules against writing articles about yourself, however it is discouraged. In other words: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved." (from WP:AUTO) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

From the author again...To the above critic...I would bet that Starbucks (actually their PR company) had something to do with the Wikipedia entry...with all of the history and the photo of it's 1st store...it's a good bet. (That's the way it works when you hire a PR Co.) I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a forum to introduce new innovations to the market, but maybe I was mistaken.

You were mistaken. Wikipedia is definitely not "a forum to introduced new innovations to the market." When you created the article, you should have noticed that above the edit box, it says "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies." We have a formal policy that says Wikipedia is not a soapbox that says "Wikipedia articles are not self-promotion." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought who better to write an entry than the person who understands it best.

Fine as far as it goes, but a Wikipedia editor can only use his or her expertise to help in organizing, interpreting, and presenting material. Everything that goes into an article is supposed to derived from material that has been published by reputable sources and the source must be cited.

To the critic below...Thanks for the crack on the Entrepreneur Magazine article. It was a really great day for us when a small company is recognized by a national magazine for it's innovative idea. Recognition is verification that you're on the right track.

Good. In a year or so Javette Coffee may be a suitable topic for an article... if the story can be told by, say, citing articles in food magazines.

Go ahead and delete the article. Wikipedia and Javette are probably not a good fit for each other. --Javette Coffee 20:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a forum to introduce new innovations to the market" No, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a forum to introduce new innovations to the market (WP:NOR). As for Starbucks, just because Starbucks may or may not have violated WP:AUTO doesn't mean that others should too. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia and Javette are probably not a good fit for each other." That's a good way to look at it. Not at this time, no. The mistake you made is very common and it's no big deal. I, for one, would be glad to have a knowledgeable editor contributing to articles about food processing, aseptic packaging, and the like. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This article started out as an obvious advertisement. It has moved in the direction of an actual encyclopedia entry, but hasn't gone far enough. It is still an advertisement. The author did assert it's notability, so CSD doesn't apply. Also, the author removed my prod tag so here we are. Please note that the only contributor is a user called Javette Coffee. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I "rescued" this article from CSD, but agree it is definitely an ad. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Furthermore, I don't see how it can ever be more than advertising. I doubt that any of this material can be sourced to anything but the company's own website. Incidentally, I'm not at all sure the claim of its being "the world's first brand of single serving, one cup coffee concentrate" is accurate. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an ad. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 23:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - no longer reads like an ad, but 2 questions remain: is it notable, and is it a vanity article? Any thoughts? -- Tivedshambo (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I read "Criteria for products and services" under WP:CORP and it says that Javette should have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I looked in google for a while and found the company website, a bunch of message board posts which all looked like obvious spam, and a few actual articles. Yahoo Shopping says "This merchant is not yet rated and reviewed." entrepreneur.com and about.com each had an article about the company, but even entrepreneur.com didn't think it deserved it's own article (the article was about three other companies). I'm sticking with my vote for now. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep and explain the technology, relations to other similar products, that sort of thing. It's very much link-orphaned now, but is one of a range of foodstuffs that is of some interest. Aye-Aye 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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.