Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Sanchez 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Sanchez Foods

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is of course poorly written, and it doesnt yet establish solid notability, but i believe that this company CAN be shown to be notable. their products are ubiquitous through the sf bay area, one of the major metropolitan areas of the world. a little more sourcing should provide enough notability. unfortunately, i may not have the time or inclination to add this sourcing, so i can only hope that others will do so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with comprehensive clean-up! Media coverage is not overwhelming, but I came across this in The Wall Street Journal. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Morenooso (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:COMPANY this company has been the subject of mulitiple independent veriable reliably sources to include the Wall Street Journal, Forbes and all three major local television affiliates.--Morenooso (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (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.