Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shake's Frozen Custard


 * 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 no consensus. There are valid concerns about the level of sourcing, but enough think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG to prevent deletion. Note that promotional concerns can be fixed through editing instead of deletion. ansh 666 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Shake's Frozen Custard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has had no independent reliable citations since 2006, when a SPA wrote the article. A PROD was reverted in 2015, with no improvement to the article, but a claim that references supporting GNG exist. Once an article is challenged, it is up to the proponent to demonstrate that the article meets the requirement. Why should a single-location ice cream stand merit an article in an encyclopedia without references, besides WP:ILIKEIT? Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is a role account as endorsed by Sheffield.gov.uk --KalamazooGuy (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This new account made several edits to many AfDs and is currently blocked &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:KalamazooGuy has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable business. The original of this article could just as well have been speedied, and while it's toned down now, I still don't see evidence of it being a suitable topic. DMacks (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete didn't satisfy any criterion of WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources the editor is just removing the prod for the sake of it but completely unable to demonstrate it indeed deserve an article.&thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom should review WP:BEFORE: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." The existence of sources to satisfy GNG was pointed out on the talk page, so why are we here? New links since those links have died:      Toohool (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope the closing Admin will consider something here critically. The above comment by is both deceptive and  half-clever gaming of the system. In the surface, one will see 6 different websites (sources) but in reality they're one inaccessible website replicated six times. This can be verified by anybody either via opening them in six windows (like I did) or analyzing them through source code. I don't know why he think this trick can work at AfD. And this only further shows the article is unsourced and failed all criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. When it was prodded in 2015  deprodded it and  posted the same website: "info web.news bank.com" on the talkpage. He  replicated the website 6 times also. Now he just copied them from the talkpage. I write this whith much constraint, but the trick is really unbecoming. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I just tried the links in 3 different browsers and they all work. Those are links to 6 different news articles at NewsBank. NewsBank is a site that archives stories from many newspapers and other reliable sources. If they're not working for you for some reason, you can also probably access NewsBank through your local library and do the search yourself. Also, consider AGF before you go slinging accusations at people. Toohool (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you think I didn't assume good faith on you. But before I wrote that I had gone to the first revision of the page all through. I tried each link at least two times and confirmed they lead to the same website. I, today after The Bushranger's post on my talkpage, asked two different people and they all confirm that it is the same website. Now the argument of of "Archive website" is a different thing, as I didn't say it is not archiving website, and it didn't allow unregistered people to see that, neither does it allow registration, which I could've done. I don't question your source because it is reg-only, or something like that, but sincerely since the page archive newspapers why don't sources the papers directly? These papers sources has been on the talkpage since 2015 (and the article unsourced since 2006) you've access to the site why should you leave it that way and say the source is in talkpage? If you have improved the article more than you depend its keeping, I don't think it can even come in this place now, but the only source you posted at talk are not accessible to willing editors,  If I want now reference the article how can I do that with source I can't access and the article remained since 2006 with single self source. Now if this discussion is closed as kept, and you post these link at the talkpage again like you did here 2 years ago, please is that the way the article will continue existing? Do you think this is the right thing to do in the sprit of building Wikipedia? I am more of inclusionist on Wikipedia, as I believe many deleted pages could be useful, but I have searched for source on this article  is no evidence this meat any of the points highlighted at WP:GNG and I still believe it should be deleted because Verifiability (in this case very little, not asserted since 2006) is not guarantee for inclusion on Wikipedia. It really exists and have website, but that's also invalid criterion for inclusion &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I had tried the first talkpage link both from a site that appears to have Newsbank access and one that connects via a proxy (and through that appears to have access). In both case, I got: "Log in for complete access to this resource. There was an issue while searching for the article you requested... please contact customer service." Without at actual cites to the actual newspapers or exactly what search to do myself (note, "I found lots of search hits" itself isn't a WP:RS or WP:GNG claim), I can't figure out there to go further at that site, so I have no basis to change my !vote. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, the new links here in the AfD seem to work. Checking... DMacks (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's barely enough here to pass, but there's enough. Newsbank is, as noted, a newspaper-article-archiving service; just like Archive.org and Newspapers.com, it is not "just one site multiple times". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--The links are to different news-pieces by diff. authors, published on diff. mediums Newsbank is an archive of diff. news-pieces and obviously the domain-name will be same. but they don't satify GNG.Typical corp-promo news. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Based on the sources provided by . Although I would love to see someone improve the page by adding the references in and cleaning up the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A few more sources found on Newspapers.com:    Toohool (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article reads like an advertisement, and WP:PROMOTION could well apply to this article. Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets GNG, although on a weaker level. I have copy edited the article to address concerns with promo tone. North America1000 01:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 6 references cited above are every single one of them promotional stories in local newspapers--such accounts are indiscriminate coverage,any not truly independent. There's nothing else substantial .  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 November 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.