Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream

 * – ( View AfD View log )

this is entirely PR spam, sourced to more PR spam with no in depth coverage of My/Mo Mochi, everything is a press release or funding/finance announcements which do not lend itself to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * comment I promoted this from AfC; neutral on whether it stays or goes. Contrary to the nom, the article seems to be independent & in-depth; as does  and . Not sure how many such articles  is looking for, nor how they draw a line between PR spam and, err, not PR spam. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles based entirely on interviews and information fails WP:ORGIND section of the WP:NCORP guidelines. All three of those references fail WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources such as CNN, Fox and Yahoo are reliable, independent and discuss the subject in depth. The tone is factual and free from hype. Discussing a commercial product does not automatically make the article spam. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN is an rs but its a single source and cannot possibly substantiate an entire article, the other two pointed out above are q&as which lack independence and aren't coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes is a reliable source. The introductions to interviews are valid sources, and the interviews indicate that the subject has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Forbes staff pieces are reliable, contributor pieces aren't reliable and independent. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Yahoo and Fox business have in depth coverage. There is also a CNN mention. So there is significant coverage to meet notability. To Nominator: Do you have any arguments on why you think there is PR? How exactly can we distinguish between a company that has major media to be PR or free media?? Peter303x (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments in both of the other Keep entries above that pertain to notability and factuality, and maybe most importantly, the very relevant comment from the AfC promoter tagged as Comment above.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete The article is about a product, not a company, changed !vote to Keep Not a single one of the references meet the NCORP criteria, especially both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH or else the sources are PRIMARY or unreliable. Here's why:
 * This from Fox Business is entirely based on an interview. There is nothing in the article that is one of "independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" as everything appears attributable to the person being interviewed. Articles that rely on interviews fail WP:ORGIND
 * [https://www.centuryparkcapital.com/2015/07/09/century-park-capital-partners-completes-acquisition-of-mikawaya/ This from Century Park Capital" is to support a tangential fact in the article and does not even mention this company, not relevant for the purposes of establishing notability
 * This from CNN fails for the same reasons as the foxbusiness reference. It is entirely based on an interview with the same person (Marketing officer). Also, many of the same descriptions and language pops up in multiple stories and PR. Fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview and/or information provided by the company.
 * This from FoodDive is based on an interview, confirmed in the byline, fails WP:ORGIND as above
 * MyMochie.com Primary source
 * This from Mashed is exactly what it says. All of the information about the company in this article is credited to CNN - the exact same CNN Business article above - or the Primary source. Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reason as the CNN article.
 * The Entrepreneur article is based on an interview with the same Marketing Officer as all the others above. In my opinion, he's doing a great job, the company sure is getting its name out there. Reference fails the criteria for establishing notability though, fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as the other articles that rely entirely on information provided in an interview or by the company.
 * This from Yahoo Finance is based on an interview but with a different company executive than the others. Still fails WP:ORGIND though.
 * This from FoodBev is a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Axios takes you to the Forbes "Contributors" section which is not a reliable source, fails WP:RS
 * This from Packing Digest is based on an announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This in Cassandra is a marketing firm showcasing the work they did for the company. Fails WP:ORGIND
 * When you go through all of these references and look at other references out there, you realise that every single dot of information in this article is based on what the company and the company marketing executives wrote. There isn't an independent line out there.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "If you seek it out, chances are the first brand you’ll see is Los Angeles-based My/Mo Mochi. Kroger carries it. So does Target. Whether you’re in Anchorage, Alaska, or Zzyzx, California (an actual city!) you’ll be able to find the stuff.  Currently, My/Mo Mochi makes fifteen different flavors. Since that’s way too many for a person to pick from blindly, we’ve tested and ranked all fifteen of them below."</li> <li> The article notes: "I assumed that I would not like mochi based on how the texture was described, but then came My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream. ...These things have completely changed my outlook on mochi. My first bite was of Dulce du Leche: creamy coffee ice cream filled with caramel, wrapped in a sweet mochi dough. It was perfect. Honestly. Everything about it was amazing. It was a bite-sized bunch of flavor."</li> <li> The article notes: "Eating My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream bites was an experience that reminded me a little of ... They aren’t bad, but they’re not amazing, either. They take a little getting used to, I guess. ... They’re a little pricey at almost a dollar a ball. At $4.99, that’s more than I usually pay for the aforementioned container of ice cream. But I was glad for the chance to try them and get a glimpse of the way the younger half lives."</li> <li> The article notes: "The exterior is a velvety rice mixture that tastes like cookie dough. Inside there’s ice cream. And inside that, another flavor that takes these My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream snacks to another level."</li> <li> The article notes: "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream Goopy, gummy, chewy, rubbery — tasters could not get past the rice-based coating, which one dubbed awkwardly textured and another despised for its floury surface."</li> <li> The article notes: "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream I’ve always been a dessert after dinner person. These little ice cream dough balls are the perfect substitute for digging into a pint with a spoon. They’re soft and pillowy but still sweet and satisfying. Eat two of them and your sweet tooth will be satisfied."</li> <li> The article notes: "If you're anything like me, you can actually rest easy, because My/Mo comes from the same makers of Mikawaya. That means you can expect the same Mikawaya quality, but with new, exciting flavors and eye-catching packaging. ... Launched only earlier this year in January, My/Mo has enjoyed explosive growth and is now available at 6,000 retailers nationwide, including Whole Foods and Safeway."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic is the company, not the product. You've just posted reviews of their product which is treated as a different and separate topic according to our WP:NCORP guidelines. Most of the reviews are a reflection of the new/cool "thing", not necessarily establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 23:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article says, "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream is an American ice cream brand sold in the United States and Canada." The sources I provided are reviews containing reliable sources' analysis and opinions about the brand. The reliable sources focus on the brand, not the company. The sources establish notability for the brand. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thanks Cunard, I've changed my !vote, I believe the references you've provided meet the criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.