Deletion of Woods Coffee

Comment: per Ravenswing and Binksternet. Also, recent edits attributes  with the sculpture controversy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: now that the inappropriate promotional material has been removed. The local sources aren't just the usual "new store X opening" fluff, but do have some in-depth coverage. In particular, the RFID story (Binksternet's first item) highlights an innovation in the marketplace, published in a nonlocal source. The article would definitely benefit from other and more-truly independent sources (I agree that even this RFID one is substantially parrotting self-sourced). I agree with Phearson, that being involved in a local controversy (especially if  comment on it) is valid content. It may even be one of the keys to this company being notable. Likewise with the http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/03/02/1894507/the-woods-coffee-scraps-plan-for.html public art situation (reliable source mentions some public negative response...looks like a balanced story with in-depth coverage related to company). Dubyus would do well to read  and  if he thinks the previous content made this article viable and on par with the others and  if he thinks this store is on par with the others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NPOV||WP:COI)

Comment: Looks like there's a good case that they meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: I find the essay  a good read in this case, nethertheless in light of the substantial secondary sources i lean to keep (for now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:local)