Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikey Likes It 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey_Likes_It_Ice_Cream[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill ice-cream shop with nothing more than the normal publicity that I'd expect. I can't see great sources. Someone just added some information about them teaming up with Microsoft, which looked potentially interesting, but they ref-bombed it with a huge list of very weak sources, so I'm not even convinced by that. Doesn't look in any way notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Mikey's has collaborated with Geico, Microsoft, and Ewing, but more importantly it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources, including Vice, Essence, NY Post, and ABC News, among others. pburka (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it's a stub right now doesn't mean it can't be expanded. A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles, some almost 10 years ago and one from only 6 days ago, showing that it does have lasting coverage. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: I'd be really grateful if you could suggest one that's not an interview. It'd be just so good if we can get this article supported by at least one source that's independent of the subject. All four of those suggested by Pburka are interviews/churnalism and when I did my googling, all I could find was a complete plethora of almost identical interview-based pieces, and blog-type stuff about the Microsoft icecream. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of honesty, I should make it clear that I removed a sentence about the microsoft collaboration before creating this AfD because it was supported by no less than 17 citations, all of which were to interviews, blogs etc.; anyone who wishes to assess those sources is welcome to have a look at the previous version here [1]. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reliable sources on the topic, including The Verge NBC eater.com. Sure, there are a lot of interviews, but there are definitely secondary sources in the mix. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissal of any source that includes an interview isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, and dismissing reliable sources as "churnalism" certainly isn't. Regardless, the business has also received significant coverage in Rehabilitation Is Reentry (Garot; p. 315; Routledge; 2019), and Stronger Together (Clinton and Kaine; p. 201; Simon & Schuster; 2016). pburka (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors fail to realise that sources may be used to support facts/information within an article - and sure, interviews are fine for that. But there's a different examination for sources used to establish notability - and primary sources (which is what an interview is) are not acceptable for certain topics, such as companies/organizations. Check out WP:ORGIND and the definition for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please do put the book references in. But honestly the existing sources apart from your books are not good sources. Theverge one says next to nothing about the ice-cream business, it's mostly a promotional piece for microsoft, and quite probably commissioned publicity. The Newyork entertainment piece is a short interview piece featuring 4 icecream outlets, of which this one gets less than 30sec. The eater is also really just a passing reference, being mostly about Hilary Clinton. These are fine as subsidiary references, but is there anything in depth and independent? If the books are, please put them in, because the article desperately needs them.

as for the comment about dismissing interviews, Pburka, I quote "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" from Wikipedia:Interviews. That's precisely what I want. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you're not mistaking an essay for policy. pburka (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS section most likely applies to this type of company.

I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obvious blogs or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, *interviews* fail ORGIND. They are considered primary sources for most purposes. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Most discuss the tie-in with Windows11 but even then, the others focus on the owner/founder - great story but doesn't translate to notability of the company for me. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. If anyone wants to post other references (perhaps reviews?) I'm happy to review and perhaps change my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - despite refbombing, there is little independent coverage from good sources. 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep References represent SIGCOV and are independent and reliable. Passes GNG GoldMiner24 ^Talk 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, not notable as explained by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Routine promo article with no historical or encyclopeadic value. scope_creep^Talk 02:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions about the sources that are diametrically opposite to one another, but at the moment the closing admin is being asked to judge the sources for themselves; elaboration from all parties of why they consider sources counting toward NCORP, or why they don't, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: thank you for your accurate summary. My personal view is that although the supporting sources are in good places, they're all fairly trivial, and generic: for example one is an interview piece visiting several ice-cream outlets, which means it's more about the concept of ice-cream sales in NY than about Mikey's, and is a rather short feel-good space-filler; the Microsoft bit is about Mikey's, but my impression is that some marketing people had a mutually-beneficial idea, and this is the sort of publicity they'd generate to carry it through. My attention was drawn to this article in the first place by an addition that was ref-bombed with 17 sources, some of which were automatically tagged as deprecated and unreliable [2]. But of course many bad sources doesn't mean all bad sources. And I am absolutely happy to put my hands up and admit I don't know the full details of the ice-cream or publishing scenes in NY: an independent assessment of the sources from someone else would carry far more weight than mine. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal coverage exists of this two (three?) location ice cream chain. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:TOOSOON. It's a nice feel good story - hopefully more coverage will occur as he expands. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article would probably be a narrow pass on WP:GNG, but the community norm is that a mere WP:GNG pass when coupled with an WP:NCORP fail renders an article notable. Much of the coverage is about Cole as a person—coverage of Cole's story as a convicted felon-turned-ice cream salesman is an inspiring story, the coverage of which very well may render him passing WP:NBIO. But I'm not really seeing coverage in the online sources that the pair of stores passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing above that pburka mentions at least one usable book (I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manifesto being an RS in this context). I don't have access to the source, but I might be persuaded that coverage goes beyond WP:CORPDEPTH if the coverage in that book is substantial. Is anybody able to describe the sorts of facts that the book contains regarding the article subject? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2022 (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.