Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frost, A Gelato Shoppe


 * 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. Without prejudice to recreation when more sources develop.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Frost, A Gelato Shoppe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Scrape away all the promospam, and what we have here is an ice cream parlor in Tucson. Hardly notable. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is obviously just an attempt by some average business owners to get worldwide recognition. The awards they have won all seem to be minor and ordinary. -epzik8 11:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. In fairness, the article is a bit out of date, and this is now a chain with stores in Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque, and Chicago, and some indicia of local notability in Arizona, at least.  That may not be enough to get to notability, yet, but it's not quite as small or local a business as may have appeared.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As was said above, this is no longer just a local shop. This company is not large, but it has two shops in Arizona, one in New Mexico and one in Illinois. Also, it has gotten some decent reviews. One in the Trip Advisor website should be noted, in particular. This company is as notable as many small companies in Wikipedia and they, too, should have articles.Bill Pollard (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule does not apply here. The internet clearly has a significant amount of newer material on this subject. The problem is the article's author needs to use this material to update the article.Bill Pollard (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I can interject for a second, I just wanted to state that you should never rely on other editors to add content or sources to an article. It looks like someone added it, but if you find sources that show notability for an article you should always WP:BEBOLD and add it yourself. Never assume someone else will do the work for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I checked a few links - they seem to be variable and the awards are a bit puffed up, but it is evident that this has become significant franchise chain and should be kept. I started editing but it seemed futile if the article is to be deleted. If not, I will come back and edit.  Kooky2 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources here, but the other cited examples are merely WP:ROUTINE and hence this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It also fails WP:GNG, which requires multiple independent sources and significant coverage. The coverage that does exist, moreover, is in a regional publication not national or international in scope, which is preferred but not required under CORPDEPTH. I did a search and could not find any additional sources to cite that would enhance its position under the GNG or CORPDEPTH. I think it's likely that there will be further significant coverage in the future and it could then warrant an article, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. --Batard0 (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * keep: I find myself hanging in the balance on this one but overall I'm inclined to keep. For some reason I like this page more than I should like a page that is just about an ice cream parlour in Tuscan. I see the reason for concern about being promotional, but there seems to be notability with the awards and the information does have some good references. Fireflo (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Four locations do not make this a notable chain.  Had it been larger, I'd agree with keeping it, but there are lots and lots of food businesses which are larger that most people here would probably agree are not notable.  --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There are three short but probably acceptable articles from the Arizona Daily Star, and one from the Tuscon Citizen, and a few local awards. If there was just a little bit more coverage outside the local area, it would be enough to keep. But I scraped every news and book database I have and found nothing, and nothing in specialized business databases like ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. ReferenceUSA has a routeine phone book listing but nothing more. The company and its founders also can't claim any genuine innovations or influence on their field; their notability is only that they're pretty good at what they do and moderately successful. Close, but not quite enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2012 (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.