Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premium Brands Holdings Corporation

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) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Brands Holdings Corporation[edit]

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

At first, this corporation would seem notable especially considering they have several brands but my searches simply found nothing better than this and this. This has existed since September 2006 with not much change and the only active user to ping seems to be Northamerica1000. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. by common sense. A $1 billion company is notable. Sources may be difficult in this area, but this is a problem with our resources, not the subject. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may have to look for food industry specific publications like [1] for some additional information. Companies like these that don't have a strong consumer-facing product line generally get ignored by the mainstream press. shoy (reactions) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable. needs more refined sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 30 October 2015 (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.