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. The NY Times story is pretty convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

RS coverage are directory listings and ghits don't assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: Lots of Google News Archives hits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, most of which are directory listings, company reports and profiles, nothing that establishes notability. No coverage discussing the company per se. It's existed for a long time and if that alone makes it notable then it may be, but there doesn't appear to be much coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Amongst those Google news hits there or some which give substantial [1] [2] or semi-substantial [3] coverage. Surely we have room for the maker of over 100 types of chocolate bunnies and Gummy Body Parts? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yeah, I like to know Where Chocolate Bunnies Come From (read presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:47, 6 March 2008 (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.