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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Village Cheese Company[edit]

STRONG DELETE What makes this cheese company notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page? The only sources are to a few small town newspapers which hardly reaches the level of wikipedias sourcing requirements. The author fails to provide any sales, distribution, or anything special about this cheese company to differentiate it among the thousands if not millions pf cheese companies in the United States. Additionally, this article reads like a press release, not giving any information other than it opened a new 2500 sq foot facility. Wikipedia space can be dedicated to people and things that serve a higher more noble purpose. Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need for clean up is not a valid reason to delete it. Appears to meet WP:COMPANY and WP:N. Simple Google News search found 66 potential sources. The company won a metal at the "2006 World Cheese Awards in London" and its cheeses have won awards at the International Fancy Food Show.[1] Having been around since 1890, its highly unlikely there isn't enough coverage to fix and expand the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Collectonian. — ^\`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^`^/ (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Business has a long history (an indication of significance), is the subject of two published articles in respectable reliable sources (qualification for WP:N, and Collectonian has found additional evidence of notability. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known business with significant press coverage. Nominator is SPA indiscriminately nominating articles for deletion with overheated rationales. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Collectonian and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Does appear to meet WP:N. Geoff ^T ^C 16:22, 19 July 2009 (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.