Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuhn's Quality Foods


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kuhn's Quality Foods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Even with nine stores, there's nothing in the article that shows me this is a particularly significant or important chain. As noted above, no significant coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete . Even with the revisions made today, I'm still not convinced the depth of coverage is sufficient for GNG. There are lots of stories on a transactional basis, but no deeper coverage of the store. I still lean on the side of deleting the article, but I'm not as convinced as I was earlier. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete , a local grocery chain, every town will have something similar. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It certainly appears to be better sourced now than what I first read.  May have some local or historical interest to future generations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references, local chain, does not meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Week Delete I'm also not convinced of the notability of this subject. References or not, there isn't anything in the article to differentiate this business from any other small chain.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now shows significant coverage from a number of different sources. The company has been in business since 1967. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article now improved, I think coverage and size is significant enough for inclusion.  Probably more coverage than recent keep for Articles for deletion/Ridley's Family Markets, and certainly much more than recent delete for the 3-store Articles for deletion/Lee's Marketplace. --Milowent (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn - wish I'd found half that many refs when I looked. Well done to Milowent and Eastmain for the digging -  if you found that much within a few hours, then it's worth keeping and improving.  MuffledThud (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Kudos to Milowent for his continued research. I'm going to give the store the benefit of the doubt, that what the article needs is expansion (history section, anybody) and more research and not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of notable references.  D r e a m Focus  09:47, 12 November 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.