- 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cake Financial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Originally an A7 speedy candidate, but an assertion of notability is present. Still, I'm unsure whether the links provide sufficient notability for WP:CORP. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep coverage looks significant and non-blog for once (except that last link which should be pruned). 4 reliable sources each with more than simple name dropping or cursory mentions meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP.--Crossmr (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have notable references in well known press sources as well as new categories. Seems to pass muster. What else is wrong?m2k —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the other 2. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 14:49, 12 January 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.