Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimmee Jimmy's Cookies


 * 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Gimmee Jimmy&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an advertisement, and would be speedyable if not for news links. There is some coverage from a few years ago (mostly focused on the fact that many of the employees and the founder are hearing impaired), but none of the new material is sourced (talking about the "revival" of the company). Article created by a single purpose account, most likely a COI issue as wel. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. This is a consumer business selling its products to the general public under its own brand.  Google News and books results are not really all that helpful, but the results seem to indicate minor historical importance: this business's online marketing predates the Internet and goes back to the CompuServe/GEnie/AOL era.  Probably needs to be stubbed if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic:Baased on very quick read, the 1993 NYT article does suggest there is something here but by itself may not be enough- maybe the author just happened to live next door to the place- but highly suggestive. I'm not sure if you can preferentially hire one group against another legally ( this humour comment derives from some concerns with legal issues ) but this seems to be a notable attribute of the business. So, while I think I had earlier flagged a user page with a similar name, and the ad-like tone here is quite clear, it can probably be salvaged with some help. Certainly a deaf guy using online marketting in 1993 will tend lead to a story rather than an encyclopedia entry but style can be fixed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently notable because of special circumstances, but the article needs to be trimmed of puffery and advertisement. BTW, the NYT article is a one sentence mention, so I don;t see how it proves anything. But the other sources do. I think this is the first time I've said keep for a local business in many months--this does seem to be an exception to our proper general skepticism.     DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (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.