Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

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. Consensus is that this isn't a notable enough topic for a stand-alone article. If somebody wishes the article userified to work on and/or to merge content (with attribution as required) to one of the other Gitmo articles, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is yet another article on a non-notable topic related to the war against terror created by Geo Swan (talk · contribs). The references provided in the article note that it is routine for US military bases to have Starbucks and other fast famous food franchises (eg, one includes a quote that "There is (of course) a Starbucks, a McDonalds, a combined Subway-Pizza Hut, a Wal-Mart-like big box store called the Nex and a gift shop" and another that "fast food options remain in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Washington Post obtained a line-by-line breakdown of capital expenditures at the U.S. naval station in Guantanamo Bay, and it turns out that the Pentagon has spent at least $500 million since 9/11 renovating the base, including "$683,000 to renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee, and $773,000 to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant" so there's nothing unusual about this (though it does seem a bit odd to people unfamiliar with the kind of facilities on US military bases)). The sources provided to link this cafe it to the goings-on at Guantanamo mention it only in passing - for instance this article is actually about the duration and dullness of the current court proceedings and not the cafe and this story says only that "F.B.I. interrogators provided Al Qaeda suspects with “food whenever they were hungry as well as Starbucks coffee". To cap it, according to the US military website used as a reference in the article ([1]), the cafe isn't actually a Starbucks, but is a coffee bar called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' which sells Starbucks products as well as products produced by other companies. As such, I don't see how WP:ORG is met here. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First this nomination lapses from our standards which state the discussion should be about the article, and the topic of the article -- and has instead commented on the character of the individual who started the article. Second, it is marred by selective bias in the choice of references criticized, and, sorry, the way those references are criticized is misleading.
As Starbucks go this is a small one. But it is a significant one, as several aspects of it have tied it to the torture debate. Commentators have asked, since the second set of interrogators were able to get the suspects to acknowledge their role in terrorism simply through offering them a Starbucks coffee, then was it really necessary for the first set of interrogators to torture them? Geo Swan (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you've got a habit of creating similar articles, I thought that was worth pointing out. The "subject of coffee from Starbucks and torture" (to quote the article) is about whether torture was needed, and not actually about Starbucks. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no statement asserting the notability of this topic in the article. WP:ORG is not met. The title of the article is misleading too and does not even match the subject. The actual name of the facility is "The Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)" (misspelled in the image description) where among other things they happen to sell Starbucks brand coffee. So, what? Not notable. WTucker (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, are you suggesting that an article on a topic that has had many WP:RS address it over the last seven years has to explicitly state it is notable?
  Second, we never delete articles on notable topics simply because some contributors think the article should be at a different name. Instead we discuss alternate names. Could you please suggest your alternate name on the talk page?
  Third, commentators have questioned why the USA needed to torture its suspects in the first place when sympathetic listening and Starbucks coffee was enough to get them to talk about their role in terrorism. Could you please explain why you do not see this as conferring notability?
  Fourth, while Starbucks has something like ten thousand outlets, the location of this location makes it special enough that it has come in for significant coverage. The following reference I just added devotes half a chapter to Starbucks at Guantanamo. Starbucks has something like 10,000 outlets. How many have required Starbucks HQ to repeatedly go on record on controversial political issues? They did so with the Starbucks at Guantanamo -- and not 9,900 other outlets. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nick Turse (2009-03-03). The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives. MacMillan Publishing. p. 61-64. ISBN 9780805089196. Retrieved 2012-05-09. When questioned about its implicit support for the prison camp/torture center, in correspondence made available by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Starbucks claimed it had always 'been committed to operating its business in a socially responsbile way and to living by a set of Guding Principles that includes treating people with respect and dignity.'
  See WP:SPEEDY#A7. An article about an organization (among others) that does not indicate why it is important or significant is a candidate for speedy deletion. I see that you have now added a statement that the presence of the Starbucks has stirred controversy thus asserting importance. This statement appears to be unsourced and only inferred from the statements from human rights groups who, I assert, are trying to stir controversy. By the way, I have no better title suggestion -- I voted delete. WTucker (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the store itself, which is not a Starbucks, is not notable enough. Any notable information - and there seems to be some - should be moved to the Guantanamo Naval Base article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sake, it's a coffee bar on a military base! Big deal! Any relevant info can be merged with the Guantanamo Naval Base article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order -- several contributors here have asserted that this article should be deleted because this coffee shop is "not a Starbucks".
As seen in the nearby image the coffee shop displays Starbuck's very closely guarded logo, stating "we proudly brew Starbuck Coffee". I suggest when a coffee shop legitimately displays the Starbucks' logo, uses Starbucks' coffee, in Starbucks' cups, it is legitimate to call it a Starbucks.
I invite those who based their "delete" opinion on the challenge as to whether this coffee shop should be allowed to be called a Starbucks offer their alternate definition of what does and doesn't constitute a Starbucks. Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather odd claim: the US military, which runs this cafe, says its called 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream (Triple C)' and also sells other company's products (such as the ice cream being advertised in the window at the bottom right of the photo, I imagine). Anyway, the reason I nominated this for deletion was that it doesn't meet WP:ORG, and by my reading that's the reason the other editors who have supported the deletion have given. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true at all. Many outlets sell Starbucks coffee. That doesn't make them a Starbucks. There's a big difference between "we sell Starbucks coffee" and "we are a Starbucks" (is every supermarket with a Starbucks coffee machine a Starbucks? Of course it isn't!). But whether it's a Starbucks or not is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Even if it were, so what? It's just a coffee shop whether it has a famous logo or not. Starbucks as a chain is notable. Individual shops are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I suspect the article creator, like myself, is keen to point out instances where U.S. capitalism has a conflict of interest U.S. military strategy. However a Starbucks at any U.S. military base, on the mainland or abroad, is completely unremarkable, it's common practice. This could be conveyed in one sentence on the main Guantanamo article. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base per User:Ryan4314, although to be fair I think it could get at least three sentences in that article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I think the essential information that GeoSwan is attempting to convey is that offers of mainstream mass-market food and drink have been used to induce cooperation with Gitmo detainees by interrogators. That's notable, and worth including somewhere. However I agree with Necrothesp and others who point out that this *isn't* a Starbucks, and even if we were to create a 'Caribbean Coffee and Cream' article it wouldn't be sufficiently notable to survive a deletion discussion. However, we should include the inducement-by-food-and-drink, and I would strongly support it's inclusion somewhere. Exactly where is up to GeoSwan, but that place is not a frankly misleading article citing a cafe that simply doesn't exist under the name the article title is at. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness' sake. Entirely non-notable. Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, KFC, and others all have outlets on U.S. military bases all over the world. There is nothing special about this one, whether or not it actually a Starbucks. This article seems to be a desperate attempt to link Starbucks to torture, although I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's claim of notability is because it's a coffee shop at GITMO. Notability is the place, not the shop, notability is not ascribed, not inherited, and not based on location. If the coffee shops and fast food joints at GITMO need to be mentioned, it should be in passing about GITMO itself as a naval base.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sweet jesus, if we have an article for every Starbucks we are gonna run out of electrons and break the internet. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included this {{afd}} in the deletion sorting for news events. Hundreds of news articles refer to this outlet. While many of them don't say much more than to say it never occurred to them that they would find a Starbucks at Guantanamo, dozens of WP:RS go on, and repeat what I regard as a notable meme, which I will paraphrase here: "If the 2007 'clean team' interrogators were able to get the 9-11 suspects to incriminate themselves merely through patient listening and Starbucks coffee, was it really necessary for the the 2003 interrogators to subject them undergo waterboarding?"
Individual Starbucks outlets, in general, are not notable. Starbucks has over 15,000 outlets -- and most of them don't stand out. The topic of Starbucks at Guantanamo does stand out, because it has been represented as playing a key role in enabling the Guantanamo military commissions to go forward against individuals whose original confessions were inadmissible due to the extreme coersion used to extract them.
The topic of Starbucks at Guantanamo does stand out, without regard to whether the Starbucks coffee was purchased from a facility operated directly by Starbuck corporation, from a franchise liscensed from Starbucks corporation, or even a vending machine that dispensed Starbucks liscensed coffee -- because WP:RS referred to the use of "Starbucks coffee" as an effective alternative tool for encouraging suspects to incriminate themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thus, if someone said "If the 2007 clean team interrogators were able to get 9-11 suspects to inciminate themselves through careful listening and green eggs and ham...", green eggs and ham at GITMO would be notable? Do you see the problem? You are ascribing notability now through an off-handed remark mentioning a chain of coffee shops. It does not merit its own article, it does not create notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think homeopathy is nonsense, but if multiple reliable sources asserted that the suspects volunteered incriminating information after being dosed with homeopathy potions, I would cover those assertions in spite of my personal doubts about homeopathy. Our policies require us to respect what reliable sources say, and to give very little regard to our own personal opinions, when we disagree with published reliable sources. This is not a meme created and forwarded by "someone". It is a meme published, over the course of several years, in multiple reliable sources. Yes, I understand that some who voiced a "delete" opinion here are amazed by the idea that the use of a particular brand of beverage to encourage self-incrimination merits coverage. However, I suggest the repetition of this meme, in RS, over years, does merit coverage, without regard to how amazing it may seem to you. Geo Swan (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your response, and making my point so well. Our policies require us to start articles that meet notability requirements, they do not allow us to start separate articles based on the mention of store A, which was mentioned in an off-handed manner by person B, which must then be notable because store A is located at spot C and sells the product mentioned, which is a notable place. Nor are your arguments, that coffee is used for self incrimination purposes (which applies to domestic law enforcement standards, and does not apply in military detention of irregular combatants) very compelling in this case. The quote you provide shows that offering some negligible incentive does not force a hardened operative to talk. I am quite certain a coca cola, big mac, subway sandwich or any other item of consumtpive value would not work either, and any of those could have been mentioned as well. Sorry, but this is not notable. The proper course is to delete the article, and you can then cite the source for the techniques used and precise source in the GITMO article, which actually passes notability requirements. Thank you again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WiFi -- WiFi is ubiguitous at Starbucks in the USA and other Western coutries, and at Starbucks competitors as well. But this shouldn't be taken for granted. Guantanamo had very strict rules about photos taken by visitors. Reporters and other visitors had to submit all their photos to military censors, prior to departure. I found the open WiFi access remarkable because, of course, the wily reporter or human rights observer could stop for a coffee, use the wifi to transmit images the censors would consider non-compliant, then erase their device's memory prior to the pre-departure inspection. Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could very well be the Navy has reporters on the honor system—that is, the reporters have to voluntarily hand over their stored pictures. These days it would be just about impossible to force the reporters to hand over everything. It would be pretty easy to conceal a USB memory stick on one's person. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 14 May 2012 (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.