Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut Butter & Co. (2nd nomination)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Peanut Butter & Co.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fixing nomination for DGG who would likely suggest this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart 111  23:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Non notable company, with sources being only PR and content being mainly name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The coverage is mostly from 1999, but there has been some coverage since that point such as from the Jerusalem Post in 2007, Baltimore Sun in 2000, and what looks to be an article in Brandweek in 2008. There are also some mentions in some travel books such as Frommer's, but since I don't know what the qualification is to be in those books, I don't entirely know how reliable such a source is. There's just enough to where I think it might squeak by. If it was just the 1999/2000 coverage I'd probably vote otherwise, but the other coverage is enough for me to give it a weak keep. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not the most notable subject in the world but appears to have received some substantial coverage in (relatively) reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per nontrivial coverage in multiple independent sources (Tokyogirl79 finds refs spanning 10 years, so not a brief flicker that fizzled or failed to attract attention after initial opening. Previous afd found some in-depth coverage as well (FoodTV highlights, etc.). DMacks (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2013 (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.