Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bones and Biscuits

:{{la|Bones and Biscuits}} ([{{fullurl:Bones and Biscuits|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bones and Biscuits}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This is a small pet-food company that wouldn't be notable except that it was started by an 11-year-old, and received a few press mentions as a result. Those sources are cited, and are all from about the same time in 2006 (except for one report on an awards dinner in 2007). I believe this is analogous to WP:BLP1E -- the single event of the company's being founded by a young person doesn't make it worthy of permanent note in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep you are wrong to refer to WP:BLP1E, as that only applies to biographies, and as such has no effect whatsoever in this discussion. What we should be referring to is WP:ORG, which states: "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." This company has been the subject of several such sources, including a report in the UK Guardian, a report on Fox news and report in the time for kids magazine (the reliability of which is questionable). The company founder also has a page on the NFTE site, which is independent of the company. Finally the company has received an award from the NFTE. I'm saying this meets WP:ORG, which is the policy that counts in this discussion Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:Though I'm a keep voter too, thought I'd point out that it's not the Guardian newspaper, but a company called Guardian Life Insurance. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for pointing that out :) Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: For me, the multiple references to the company in independent reliable sources (ABC, Fox, Time (all right, Time for Kids, but it's still an RS)) all show that the company meets the notability guideline. Here's why I don't think BLP1E should be extended to apply here: the spirit of BLP1E, as I understand it, is to prevent the encyclopedia clogging up with bios of persons who briefly enter public prominence in the context of a single news story, then fade from attention. As well as the sheer likely volume of these articles, they would be problematic in light of our undue weight policy: a single event is seldom the sum total of a person's life, but "one event" people only receive coverage for a single incident. Though BLP1E is specific to biographies, I could see the logic of extending to other "single news event" articles. But I don't think that's what this article constitutes. It was not the fact of the company's foundation that newspapers deemed remarkable, but its existence. There are references dating from multiple months and years in the references section. In short, I don't think this is a news story, so I don't think BLP1E should be extended to apply. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates notability. Note that the debate bout extending BLP1E is irrelevant as that is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment hmm, actually, the NOTNEWS is about "persons and events" so is unrelated to companies, not that it matters at all since you said keep, but just thought I'd point it out, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.