Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gelato Fiasco


 * 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   delete. Per DGG and others, there are sources here, but they are not reliable. Indeed, some are the company's own press releases. Others are passing mentions. Doesn't need GNG on this basis. Black Kite 10:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Gelato Fiasco

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable ice cream parlor. There are thousands of ice cream parlors around the US, nothing to indicate why this one is more important than any other. Disputed PROD. L0b0t (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: (Note: AfD notice not yet on page).  Beyond refs already in article, I found this 9/21/09 feature story in Mainebiz:, and this compilation of news coverage on their place's website .  This article is already much more expansive than "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restuarant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." .  I doubt 99% of ice-cream parlors  (actually gelato in this case) have this much coverage; not saying its a strong case, though. --Milowent (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mea Culpa This mess is my fault and I apologize. I sent article to AfD using Twinkle, went to work, came home and found no tag on article and no evidence in history of having been sent to AfD. I thought the listing was maybe incomplete or it didn't stick so I used Twinkle to AfD again and now we have 2 listings but I think only one of them is listed on the AfD page.  Please somebody, show me what I did wrong, how to fix it, and how to avoid it future. Thanks. L0b0t (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. I've closed the second AFD on this article in preference to this one. Also, since the article wasn't tagged, I've relisted it to restart the 7 day clock. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakest of weak keeps there's some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, but it's a regional gelato maker that sells its products at wholesale to other retailers and at their own place. It's pretty borderline, but I think it's okay to include and makes the encyclopedia slightly more complete. A longer history would be good, but it is what it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Upgrading to Keep. Plenty of coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I can tell you one thing that this is likely to get tagged for deletion again if we can't expand this much longer. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I say its not really a notable corporation, not publicly traded, ect. I would delete it along the guideline of WP:ITEXISTS. — ASPENSTI — TALK  — CONTRIBUTIONS  00:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Essay, not guideline. Gruntler (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note, I exist. Alan16 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the general notability guidelines being met (only one source appeared to be substantially about the subject and independent, and it's a dead link), and I don't see the Intuit grant competition—either being a finalist or, should they win, winning it—as being a specific claim to notability sufficient to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I did find some notability of this company but just enough to warrant a weak keep from me. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It is very well covered, and there's very little cost of keeping it. Saebjorn! 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by Milowent. This article from Mainebiz provides significant coverage (multiple paragraphs) about The Gelato Fiasco. Also, this article from The Main Switch provides information about the origin of the ice cream parlor's name. These two articles should be enough for The Gelato Fiasco to squeeze past WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my rationale for keeping the article is wrong, I withdraw my keep vote. No comment about whether this article should be kept or deleted. Neutral. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I think the sources uncovered by Milowent are just about enough to demonstrate notability. Scog (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Mainebiz article is straight Public Relations e.g. "Davis and Tropeano plan to keep The Gelato Fiasco competitive by sticking to their number one priority: the customer." The Maine Switch has "Inside that specially tuned freezer, you’ll find an ever-changing array of sweet delights." Such articles are not RSs.   DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Appears to be notable, thousands of ghits, although I agree that press agentry is at work here. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – It sells ice cream. It has a website. It has been mentioned in tiny quantities in tiny news outlets. Were I to get a job at an ice cream shop I've just described myself. I don't deserve an article, and neither does it. Alan16 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were to get a job at an ice cream shop why would news outlets write about you? Are you a particularly extraordinary scooper? Also, treating ice cream and gelato as being one in the same might be considered unfair or even uncouth by connoisseurs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I imagine I would be all of the above, that wasn't the reason for the newspaper comment: I have been in the newspaper for sports/music stuff. Either way, I'm sure that were I to scoop, I would be particularly extraordinary. Alan16 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it I've been in the newspaper also. Do multiple mentions in the police blotter amount to substantial coverage? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * weak delete Per DGG the sourcing isn't great. I'm not sure it actually fails WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also a musice venue . ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG and Alan16. Tim Song (talk) 23:03, 10 October 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.