Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaviña Gourmet Coffee

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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the nomination. in light of the additional source. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaviña Gourmet Coffee

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

Very borderline notability--LA Times is not necessarily a sufficient source for notability for a LA local company. Clearly promotional as well DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Don't think it's 'very borderline' of itself – it's a $100m plus business, according to LA Times, and a reference from there has some validity, local company or not. Agree, it needs some strengthening and I've added two further refs (Orange County Register, different story LA Times) and put more focus onto current business ops rather than history. It might be useful to flag up the bits that are 'clearly promotional' so they can be adjusted/lost. Would have thought an improve flag was more appropriate as a first step here so oppose a deletion until this article has had more time to be improved. Libby norman (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point I think Gaviña has become a significant national force in the coffee business. I added a source from Reuters/CNN.[1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (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.