Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byrne Dairy


 * 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. Uncontroversial keep. That an article is promotional is in itself no reason for deletion, voters have presented what they consider evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Byrne Dairy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established; reads like a promotional article  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 10:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article isn't neutral and needs a clean up, but the subject does seem to be notable. There's been adequate coverage by secondary sources: Buffalo News, The Evening Tribune , The Ithaca Journal , WKTV , Observer-Dispatch , and the The Post-Standard . Meets the general notability guideline.-- xanchester  (t)  18:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 19.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  06:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources available via Highbeam. I was going to close this myself, but I guess that could qualify as a supervote. -- Trevj (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable company with sufficient third party references for retention. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2012 (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.