Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon's Frozen Custard

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. The Bushranger's argument for keeping based on extensive coverage is very strong, and the "delete" opinions for the most part don't adequately address it. Sandstein 10:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leon's Frozen Custard

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

Single store, involved in minor English-only controversy. That's not enough basis for an article DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Washington Post article is the only one that gives notable coverage, but that did not spread widely enough to make it enough to justify an article, and with the institution in place for over 70 years, the one incident is not worth considering. I especially hold to this view since the Post did not interivew the owners wife or children (who are Latino), or try and even consider how much this is a place where a husband and wife team operate the establishment. I also have to say the total failure of the article to mention the fact that language used is a form of speech, and to consider what reactions would be to a Mexican restaurant in Milwaukie that told its waiters to only speak in Spanish would be. For that matter, here in Sterling Heights, Michigan a sign ordinance to require businesses to put up signs in English to provide translations of non-English language signs was stopped when the city attorney pointed out the city has no signage requirement for businesses at all. You are free to have a store with no exterior sign saying you are a store. Nothing shows to me this is a notable institution, although it might bare mention in an article like Wisconsin frozen custard restaurants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Milwaukee § Cuisine. Doesn't meet WP:AUD per source searches in Gbooks and Gnews, but per sources, this is an "iconic" and historic landmark that is very well known in the city (e.g. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel On Milwaukie Magazine article). The suggested merge target article has no mention of it, so a selective merge is functional, as per WP:ATD-M. I prefer a selective merge over entirely deleting this historic facet of Milwaukee's history and community from Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote. Don't care at this point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Northamerica1000: given the finds below, perhaps that could be reconsidered? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD. I don't see a reason for a merge; not every establishment, even if popular in the city, belongs in the city's article. That would be WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this obviously isn't a person, but the English-only coverage is the type of stuff that WP:BLP1E is designed to keep out. There's no claim of notability here. It might be reasonable to discuss this at Wikivoyage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This restuarnt has been extensively covered in a book [3], has been featured in another book [4], mentioned in multiple "best of" books [5] [6]. Mentions in additional books [7] [8]; also news coverage unrelated to the "1E": [9], [10], [11], Washington Post [12], featured in a Fox TV show [13]. Perhaps WP:BEFORE needs to be expanded to explicitly say "check Google Books". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. It already does..doesn't it? Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so it does. That seems not to happen a lot, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why considering how easy it is to do and how often sources can be found in books. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss The Bushranger's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Below we are talking about an article about a chain with 69 stores Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taziki's Mediterranean Café. Leons has one? If the notability is language controversy, then the article should be English-only controversy at frozen custard stand Rhadow (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That same essay also says What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not [a basic policy], has been defined by consensus. SwisterTwister talk 15:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above there are plenty of references in books. Any further votes for delete on this topic will need to take this into account. As it stands, the topic is notable according to those references. Egaoblai (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient references found by The Bushranger. Royal broil 19:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteon WP:Not advocacy alone, a basic policy, which says Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing and this is what deletion is based on, not whether the sources seem appealing to the reader, instead of an encyclopedia. At least one attempt before ton de-spam was unsuccessful and so, this is clear company advocacy. What WP:Notability says is Must not be excluded under WP:What Wikipedia is not or outside of [WP:NOT scope]. As for the business, we are also not WP:Not guidebook and catalog, with :"Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and etc. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every restaurant, etc. Policy supersedes any suggestive guideline, as policy is enforcement. SwisterTwister talk 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, for while Leon's does appear in a number of reliable texts, Wikipedia is not intended to be a culinary guide or travelogue. Given that the sources provided (by Bushranger) above are not directly about Leon's, I would discount them as only mentioning the subject in passing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the sources provided By Bushranger has a ten-page chapter directly about Leon's - far from your misrepresentation of it as only mentioning the subject in passing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the book and the chapter number? I looked at both [14] and [15] and neither contain a ten page chapter about Leon's.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the first of your links, click "view all" and select the third result to get to the start of the chapter. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2017 (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.