Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve's 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 per WP:SNOW. This non-admin closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the consensus expressed by others. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve's Ice Cream
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I did a google search, "Steve's Ice Cream" -wikipedia, and came back with less than 3,500. The talkpage "gives" rationale to notability though....  P G Pirate  00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) The nominator is right, the talk page implicitly states the notability of the subject. I understood that someone would come along and make the allegation about it not meeting the standards of WP:Note, that is why I included the following on the talk page:
 * Week keep. Notable ice cream chain that's been mentioned in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. Also, Google results shouldn't be the sole rationale for deleting an article. -- TBC !?!  01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. JJL (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Defunct but clearly influential and notable in its day. I also found a published book with a multi-page in-depth case study on the company. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep can pass WP:CORP with plenty of WP:RS coverage that says what they did. They are credited as innovators, especially for popularizing the mix-in. Mentions in Time, Nations Restaurant News (450 shops in 1989)], Books . And that's only with a straight Google search on "Steve's Ice Cream". • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep


 * 1) There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press; Look at the citations provided, articles in the Boston Globe and the New York Times.
 * 2) The sources are reliable; The Globe and the Times are considered to be extremely reliable.
 * 3) The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources; Most definitely secondary.
 * 4) I generated none of the information (no WP:OR conflict), am not promoting the products (the company is closed), it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.


 * Other reasons that establish notability (also from talk page):


 * 1) The company pretty much invented the "super premium" market segment in the ice cream industry, contemporary heirs to this market include Ben and Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs;
 * 2) The concept of the mix-in which spawned a whole series of products and companies that still exist today, look at Coldstone Creamery;
 * 3) It is not a biography of Steve Herrell, but a look at the company he founded.

The nominator has not shown that the article does not meet the standards of WP:Note or that it violates WP:Not.

--- Jeremy (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The included citations demonstrate this is clearly notable, and nominator's seeming use of the number of Google hits as a standard of notability is trumped by the quality of a small number of those hits. What is an acceptable number of Google results, by the way, if 3,500 does not meet it?--Canley (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources in the article clearly establish notability. Nom should probably familiarize with WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of reliable sources that confirm the notability of this company. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Keep. Sources always trump aggregate search results, and especially so in the case of defunct or historical entities. Seems like we're getting to the frozen wet stuff. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 27 February 2008 (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.