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.
Comment I added two additional references, Reuters and the NYT, which provide both provide more information on the subject and additional objectivity and credibility and notability. My overall view is that the Starbucks anti-bias training was such a significant and controversial event, the company that designed the training would be considered notable.
Crackedvessel (
talk)
18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Crackedvessel There's a basic rule on Wikipedia that
notability is not inherited. While the anti-bias at Starbucks might (and might not) be deemed notable, it certainly doesn't confer notability on each and every person and company that participated in the event. A company must be notable in its own right. Getting mentions-in-passing on the Starbucks anti-bias even does not confer notability on a consultancy company that was involved in providing anti-bias training, etc.
HighKing++ 09:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Preomotional amd Non-notable. The Starbucks connection is trivial coverage for this firm, the NYT article meely says it " also helped come up with Tuesday’s program". DGG (
talk )
13:28, 24 June 2018 (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.
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.
Comment I added two additional references, Reuters and the NYT, which provide both provide more information on the subject and additional objectivity and credibility and notability. My overall view is that the Starbucks anti-bias training was such a significant and controversial event, the company that designed the training would be considered notable.
Crackedvessel (
talk)
18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Crackedvessel There's a basic rule on Wikipedia that
notability is not inherited. While the anti-bias at Starbucks might (and might not) be deemed notable, it certainly doesn't confer notability on each and every person and company that participated in the event. A company must be notable in its own right. Getting mentions-in-passing on the Starbucks anti-bias even does not confer notability on a consultancy company that was involved in providing anti-bias training, etc.
HighKing++ 09:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Preomotional amd Non-notable. The Starbucks connection is trivial coverage for this firm, the NYT article meely says it " also helped come up with Tuesday’s program". DGG (
talk )
13:28, 24 June 2018 (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.