Deletion of Tiff's Treats

Comment: Cunard lists multiple references above but based on an incorrect interpretation of "independent" source. "Independent" doesn't simply mean that there's no connection between the publisher and the content, but also means that the *content* must be independent.  states that references must by "intellectually" independent and that Independent Content ''must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. References must also be |significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company in addition to containing |independent content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: u|Coffee312}}, yes, I believe everyone would agree that many of the sources are independent, but only insofar as that there is no connection at a corporate level between the publishing organization and the topic company. That is insufficient, on its own, to determine whether a source meets the criteria for establishing independence. Please read  for a full explanation. Nobody is critizing the publisher - certainly nobody has said that the Austin American Statesman isn't a "legitimate" newspaper. The question is whether the *content* is independent. This also has been defined in ORGIND as follows: ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' Therefore, the focus has been on the content of the articles and nothing to do with the decisions made by the publisher leading them to publish the article. Also, be aware that the requirement listed in  is for a source to be "Independent of the subject" which also mean that the content must be independent and this is further explained at CORP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:N||WP:NCORP)

Comment: as always, it is the depth of coverage and not the amount of coverage that counts when establishing a topic as meeting . Working upon Highking's analysis, there seems to be a lack of truly in-depth, sustained, independent coverage. In addition, it should be questioned as to if the topic even has a credible claim to encyclopedic significance, IE how they are notably unique when compared against other bakery services
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Look, this isn't the first time we've disagreed. I've pointed out several times in the past, as have other editors, that your style of inundating the AFD process with lots and lots of references, many of which clearly fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, is disruptive. You don't need 10 or 20 references (or you wouldn't if you understood and read }}). Just pick the three of four, the best of what you can find. Otherwise it is frustrating when I (and others I'm sure) read every one of your references which is a waste of time. It is disruptive. And I suspect the problem, in part, is that you don't acknowledge  and rely on bland statements such as "sufficient coverage in realiable sources" which, by the way, is not enough of a reason to accept sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Many of the sources cited here are independent, third party newspaper offering factual information about this organization. Cunard makes this point above. We must be very careful when evaluating what we believe to be "quality" coverage and, instead, focus on the source. For instance, The Austin American Statesman is a legitimate newspaper. They made the clear editorial decision to include this organization in their coverage. While we may disagree on the tone of the piece itself, we cannot make a judgement about the editorial decision to cover what the newsroom believes to be a notable organization. They made a decision to feature this organization in their newspaper. The same could be said for the Dallas Morning News, Nation's Restaurant News, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, and others. If the standard for  demands citations from "reliable," "independent" and "objective" sources, that standard has been met here. Moreover, the inclusion of this organization in a book-length piece further supports a claim of . Starting a discussion that challenges the editorial decisions of an independent, third-party source opens up a standard that is extremely difficult to sustain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: Indeed, this organization may have good PR, but looking at the citations, they are written by independent journalists. This clearly meets the standard for  "independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". As noted above, one citation here is from a press release, which should be removed. However, most of the remaining citations are clearly from sources unaffiliated with the subject. Moreover, they are not drawn from subject's web page. Notably, as demonstrated on the talk page, an account with COI has not edited this page but, instead, asked unaffiliated members of the WP community. To delete this page based on independently reported stories that may have a tone that one does not agree with, would be a gross miscarriage of authority. I want to reiterate a recommendation to '''KEEP'''  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)