Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

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. L Faraone 00:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence of notability per WP:COMPANY. The article was written by someone from the company ~~and appears to be merely promotional in nature~~. I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article does not have a particularly promotional tone; it provides an historical overview of the company. There's nothing there promoting the company or it's products; it reads rather factually. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I agree with you that it is not promotional as currently written, so I struck that part from my nomination. I'm not convinced that the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The articles establish notability in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and Valdosta, Georgia but that is still local to these two cities.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning towards a weak delete, but the sources noted by Northamerica demonstrate the subject is notable. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Martin's is one of the larger "major-minor" commercial bakeries. They have a presence throughout the northeastern United States, and should easily meet the standard for inclusion. The article does need better sourcing outside the local stuff being used. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (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.