Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Grown 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love Grown Foods[edit]

WP: PROMOTION WP: NOTSOAPBOX WP: LINKFARM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillianmassa (talk • contribs) 2011/03/01 19:55:58

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article was poorly written, It is salvageable. I have done some serious editing, paring out a bunch of cruft concerning the owner's bios, fixing up the refs (which are mostly from reliable sources, The Aspen Times mainly) and generally removing the promotional tone. In regards to the claim of a link farm, I do not see what you are referring to as the only external link is to the company web site, which is a standard thing in articles about companies. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they seem to have enough local/regional attention. i agree the article is crufty and promotional, but that can be fixed, as jerem43 says (havent checked his work yet, ill assume good faith until tomorrow when i check). added a ref myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There are enough third party sources that give significant coverage about this company. Ingadres (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (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.