Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamrock Shake


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shamrock Shake

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was merged once, but restored by other contributors who claimed notability without providing any sources. I could find no sources that meet WP: RS or don't violate WP:PSTS. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Redirect If it was merged once, it needs to be redirected for attribution purposes per WP:MERGE (a merge is always followed up with a redirect). Claims that something or someone is notable without any evidence to back it up can be ignored (when sources are questionable, they should be discussed). - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence includes plenty of google news hits and book notes. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - First hit is a blog, next few are the Canadian press release from McDonald's Canada. In the book hits, not a source is about the product, only a passing mention that does not establish notability. Please note that WP Policy explicitly states that the number of hits on Google do not infer notability, it is the quality of the hits that matter and none of the Google hits meet the standards of inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect to the original merge target on policy grounds (mainly WP:RS and WP:MERGE) with absolutely no prejudice to recreation with (and only with) sources that pass muster. This is one of those "I know it is notable, but I can't prove it" situations.  young  american  (wtf?) 11:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appears to be more than adequate media coverage from a Google News search: and . The article needs better referencing, but it doesn't require deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google news returns 127 articles. Not all pass the WP:N test, but articles entirely devoted to the Shamrock Shake include those from The Toronto Star, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News.  There's also "San Francisco Chronicle - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "National Post - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", "Chicago Sun-Times - ‎Mar 17, 2009‎", and it just goes on. Obvious keep. T L Miles (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Again, did anyone read the hits generated by the searches? There is only one link in the searches you pointed out that actually concerns the shamrock shake. Same point as above: most hits are the press releases from McDonald's that happened to be published on major web sites, blogs with one hit being a blog about the blogs that mention the shamrock shake, and the rest are hits with the words "shamrock" and "shake" in them but aren't about the "shamrock shake". I went at least 5 pages into the searches and not a single hit met WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yeah, I did read these. Look, if an independent reputable publisher prints a story that is effectively a press release, that doesn't make it any less a valid reference. We're talking about the Shamrock Shake here, not Watergate. You want investigative journalism? What is there to say beyond the press release that you would expect a newspaper to tackle? It's up to consensus on the related articles if this is better merged or not, but it's clearly notable, and not a candidate for deletion.  In the US and Canada, I'm willing to guess more people have heard of a Shamrock Shake than can name many of their national or local political leaders. Arguing that this topic, while of zero humanitarian or intellectual value, is not notable just doesn't pass the smell test.  If this topic wasn't notable according to WP:N, we would have to change WP:N.  T L Miles (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep is an article on the topic.   appears to also be one.  I looked at a few others, and they seemed weaker, but not unreasonable given the two above. Hobit (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep...but only because wiki has many many articles on other trivial consumer food products and so precedent has been set.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep added two ProQuest sources, including one that's clearly not Corporate PR. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...make that 5 sources, 3 of which are clearly not corporate PR, and I've appropriately de-tagged the article for sourcing but tagged the statements that still are unsupported--which can clearly be excised as desired while still leaving a useful article. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a major newspaper publishes a press release, that is an indicator of notability, and if several newspapers publish several press releases about the same topic, that should be clear evidence of notability. But even if you don't accept this argument, thanks to Jclemens' work, independent sources have been found which clearly establish notability. DHowell (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. This is an enduring (and repulsive) product that is popularized in many mainstream culture spoofs. McDonald's is - I believe - the world's best known and most notorious resteraunt so many of their products will eise to a notable level on their own. -- Banj e  b oi   09:22, 8 April 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.