Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grippo's


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Grippo's

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. The only independent refs appears to be about a minor food scandal which certainly does not convey notability. Searches only show own web-site, this article and advertisements for products. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unclear why Grippo's article is being considered for deletion As a regional U.S. mid-west business, the relevance is legitimate. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is frustrating.  Focus on the FART and QUEEF pages, and maybe Wikipedia will have a little more esteem. Yobbo14 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - non notable.. even if this is regionally important, there should be references in regional papers or media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per references in regional papers and media e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc also USA Today. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this century-old company per sources located by User:Pontificalibus. Even though article as it now stands is almost entirely primary sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a 100+ yo brand, with evidence of cult following. USA Today meets WP:AUD, while a local magazine provides additional information: link. Both sources can be used to flesh out the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references provided by Pontificalibus. The company may not be massively famous, but it is notable. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2017 (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.