Deletion of Bones and Biscuits

Comment: coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates notability.  Note that the debate bout extending BLP1E is irrelevant as that is covered by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: you are wrong to refer to , as that only applies to biographies, and as such has no effect whatsoever in this discussion. What we should be referring to is , 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 , which is the policy that counts in this discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ORG||WP:ORG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)