Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakhouse 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oakhouse Foods

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think this passes WP:N. gordonrox24 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence yet offered for notability. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Meals on Wheels? Seems to me that this is a minor example of a business providing the service. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would go for that.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Meals on Wheels, The article as it stands seems to only be a place holder for the criticism section. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it used to be longer, but since it was cut down the only sourced part that remained was actually the criticism it seems. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I missed when I reviewed it the first time that it had more information. I have restored the deleted content since no reason was given for the removal.  Upon 2nd look it does appear to be notable.  13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 21:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or merge. Seems somewhat notable based on news coverage . ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, as fails WP:CORP. Notability to come one day, perhaps, but it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per CoM's Google News search plus this additional Google News search from older media coverage: . Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if someone is willing to add the references, if not, delete. The topic is notable, there are a couple of news stories and company profiles available on Google news search, thus meeting WP:CORP.  Drawn Some (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note, actually applying the references doesn't matter to determinig if they exist or notability is met. It's helpful, but not required. -- Banj e  b oi   09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. An acceptable stub, adding the history of the group's start and benchmarks of expansion as well as the likely government grants/funding would be logical. -- Banj e  b oi   09:21, 6 July 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.