Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wemple and Edicks

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. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wemple and Edicks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local ice cream store, non-notable business. The references given include the local newspaper; a nondiscriminating directory of businesses; and a website for a local kids' swim team that doesn't mention the business. Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with local newspapers as references. The company was founded in 1826. For a retailer to survive for more than 180 years is pretty impressive. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm. Rare is the ice cream store that is never mentioned in a local newspaper, so by that reasoning, practically every ice cream store is notable, and so, by the same token, is every local children's sports team, every local library branch, every local bakery, every movie theatre. I'm concerned that allowing a mention of a local business or club in the local paper to constitute notability will defeat the purpose of having the notability criterion that the guidelines do now provide to keep Wikipedia from having an article about every single local activity. I'm more readily persuaded by the age of the operation. Other than that, what can be said about the store that can't be said about thousands of similar stores, in terms of being an institution in the community and making contributions to local civic affairs? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The store makes its own ice cream, rather than selling mass-produced ice cream from an outside supplier. This makes it significantly less common. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does not show notability. I don't see anything in WP:CORP that says that stuff like that makes it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I can't find anything other than the one news article, which is about a craft show sponsored by the store, and not the store itself. Weak, because the one source isn't that bad, and I have to imagine there are paper sources out there. Eastmain, do you have any other sources? I can't find anything to support the founding date for example. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no other sources. The article's creator has been blocked indefinitely, which means he or she can't answer our questions. The Dun and Bradstreet information offered through the Manta reference would include the year the company started, but would require payment (and might only give the year the current owners acquired the store). However, given the reference to the store as an old country store, the date isn't impossible. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: A non-notable local business. Local news is not good at all, or else every company would have an article. Schuym1 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree with that, pretty strongly infact. The problem is that we can't write an article given the lack of sources. If significant (and multiple) local sources existed, it would meet WP:N and would be fine. But the one source in question isn't enough to write an article. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References provide close to no information, certainly nothing to establish notability. The only interesting thing here is that it is claimed that this shop has operated continuously for 161 years, but even if that were verified, that fact alone would not convince me that this shop warrants an article. brianlucas (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go to the store frequently and will be able to show refrences via photography of paper sources. I am not sure of the speed these will be up though (Big lad7 (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per the historical aspect of the establishment. When I found THIS, I read "Until 1800, ice cream remained a rare and exotic dessert enjoyed mostly by the elite. Around 1800, insulated ice houses were invented. Manufacturing ice cream soon became an industry in America, pioneered in 1851 by a Baltimore milk dealer named Jacob Fussell." Thaat would make an ice crean parlor in 1826 something very special indeed. It might be one of thousands now, but its roots in American history give it the notability it deserves. And no, the article does not mention them by name... but only the business and it being quite unique it that time in history. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is interesting. If it could be conclusively shown that this shop was the first of its kind, or one of the first, and has operated continuously for >160 years, then that would indicate real historical significance. But this would have to be shown with direct historical references and it would have to be particularly significant. Simply noting that this ice cream parlour opened in the early years of ice cream is not enough. "The first ice cream parlour in America" would be notable, but being the 7th, or the 23rd, or the 45th, would not. brianlucas (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, ice cream shops were old hat in the US by 1826. From ice cream: "Ice cream was introduced to the United States by Quaker colonists who brought their ice cream recipes with them. Confectioners sold ice cream at their shops in New York and other cities during the colonial era." However, there are two (related) issue here: notability for being early (which is evidently not the case here) and notability for being old (i.e., it still exists after all these years). —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that all really old ice-cream shops are notable? There are probably a bunch of really old ice-scream shops. I still don't see how it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh? Please tell me some of these others that have been around for nearly 200 years? Wow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't agree that it's notable, just for being old. There are no reliable sources that show notability. The quote you posted is just about ice-cream. Schuym1 (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The ice-cream shop being old is not enough to convince me that it's notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All you've proven is that ice-cream is historically significant, not this shop. Schuym1 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said earliness and age are two distinct (though related) factors that may be considered in assessing notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was replying to MQS. Schuym1 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't even know what you mean anyways. Schuym1 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Then please fix your indentation.~~ Never mind, I did it for you.—Largo Plazo (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well, I think notability is shown by the sources on the article and the extra one on my talk page. So forget everything that I just said. Schuym1 (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't really have looked at the sources in the article since, as I pointed out earlier, one of them doesn't mention the shop and another one is just a directory—you wouldn't say a person was notable because his name is in the phone book, would you? And you yourself said that a mention in the local news doesn't confer notability, though now you've struck out that remark. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what? I really don't give a crap about what happens to the article anymore. Schuym1 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This AFD has been more trouble than it should have been. Schuym1 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've learned my lesson, never participate in AFDs about old buildings because they are more trouble than an AFD should be. Schuym1 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You know what? There could be hundreds of articles about old buildings at the same time, and I would be like whatever. Schuym1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.