Talk:Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is about or directly concerns enterprises. It is proposed that the guidelines laid out in articles about ongoing enterprises be adhered to. Accordingly, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s) and should be removed without hesitation. |
| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is The Second City. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
|
||
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Tone of article
This stub reads more like a PR piece than an encyclopedia entry. It needs more information about the company's importance, especially for a company just over a decade old. 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template
Articles are about their subjects, not about the article itself. Articles should not reference their status on Wikipedia, unless that status is somehow notable and attributable to an independent source. – Anþony talk 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fix references please
Currently, there is a major issue with the references. Most of the references are linking to press-releases and that's really not great. It looks like these press releases are about things that happened in real media. For example. this press release is about something that was reported in "Best of Chicago." That citation needs to be converted into a {{cite news}} format that references the page/issue/date so others can verify it. Otherwise, it doesn't pass WP:RS/WP:V. I'll spend some time tonight working on this after I get home, but it would be nice if someone could get a jump on it today. ---J.S (T/C) 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well it's beyond that, most of those references are to trivial press mentions. Wikipedia is not a clipping agency. The only reference I noticed that documented anything significant was the Roast Magazine Roaster of the Year article, and that was on intelligentsia's own site, and I'm a bit shaky on using trade magazines from small incestuous industries as WP:RS. All the remaining minor mentions should be removed as having undue weight in the article. But after you do that, there's not much left. This article is extremely marginal per WP:CORP, maybe hanging on by a thread because of the Roaster of the Year article. It is still basically promotional in nature. I recommend AfD. 67.117.130.181 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy
I don't think it qualifies as a speedy. Most of the promo-esc stuff has been removed. ---J.S (T/C) 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- You mean it was even more promo-esque before? It's still very promotional as I see it, but yeah, speedy seemed like overdoing it. I'd support deletion if someone wants to file an AfD. 67.117.130.181 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added back all the awards I could find that were not from their own site. I hope this does not cause a advert problem. I will be travelling much of Wed and Fri so I may not be online much. TonyTheTiger 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The awards do cause an advert problem (possible exception, the Roaster of the Year award which appears to be at least slightly nontrivial). They are not especially relevant to the company's notability and they take up way too much of the article (WP:NPOV#Undue weight). It's like spending half the biography of some tennis player describing every event she ever won. Most of those awards are just meaningless plugs that newspapers give to their advertisers--companies like this accumulate them in the normal course of business. If these awards are relevant then their relevance should be documented by a reliable source, for example an article that says the company has won 73 of those awards (and then you can just cite the number without having to list them all). If they're irrelevant they shouldn't be in the article (this is an encyclopedia, not a clipping service). I'd suggest including one or two of the more notable awards (Roaster of the Year probably comes closest to this, but even that one is slightly marginal unless there's press coverage outside of Roast magazine of that award) and omitting the trivial ones. 67.117.130.181 08:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added back all the awards I could find that were not from their own site. I hope this does not cause a advert problem. I will be travelling much of Wed and Fri so I may not be online much. TonyTheTiger 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
