Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Creamery


 * 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. ansh 666 09:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Newport Creamery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD reverted without improvement. No references since 2003. Lots of list entries today, but no reliable sources to establish notability for a twelve-store chain. Rhadow (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep PROD is not an article-improvement service just as AFD is not cleanup. There are thousands of sources out there and here's a selection.  See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Providence & Rhode Island Cookbook
 * 100 Things to Do in Providence Before You Die
 * Secret Providence and Newport
 * Convenience Store News
 * Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes
 * Rhode Island Curiosities
 * Food Lovers' Guide to Rhode Island
 * Dairy and Ice Cream Field
 * You Know You're in Rhode Island When...
 * New England Historical Society

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are large amounts of decent quality references available, establishing corporate notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added six decent refs.198.58.171.47 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep None of the references suggest notability in the sense of fame or being on the Social Register. There are enough to prove the restaurant has existed for some time, and the article's references do support facts in the article.  There's a general bias against having articles on corporate entities, but as there is no promotional content here, I don't see any policy reason to go along with that, so my vote is to keep. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. trivial references--mentions in tourist guides do not establish notability   DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On his user page, DGG explains that "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG". His position is therefore not based upon policy but personal prejudice.  But even that is invalid because his statement of the facts is false.  The sources for this topic do not just write for the tourist; they also write from the perspective of the businessman, the gourmand, the historian and the lawyer.  The topic is as rich as one of their cabinets. Andrew D. (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easy to find references for this sufficient to pass GNG. There's even a lot of coverage just for its best-known product, the Awful Awful milkshake. I've just added a couple sources and expanded it a bit. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sources on the page and visible in searches establish that it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on a review of the sources present and existing, the company meets WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 04:16, 11 December 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.