- 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. Plenty of coverage (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Barcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. Contested PROD by COI editor, and while I didn't place the original prod, I don't see anything beyond routine, local coverage. Spammy. Courcelles 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - easily passes the notability guidelines; the references in the article show it has received extensive coverage in many reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Robofish. CPerked (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2010 (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.