Deletion of Kilwins

Comment: No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for notability and are not intellectually independent failing  and/or . Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Since the comment chain up above with {{u|HighKing}} is rather long I will try to lay out my argument as cogently as I can and then leave it in the hands of the XFD folks. The crux of the dispute is what defines "independent" with regards to the notability criteria. NCORP, fortunately, has a section on this and we can compare it against the article. We are asked to consider the independence of the author and content. The articles given as examples were written by well-established sources (regional newspapers mostly) who have no demonstable financial link to the company. There is no reason to believe that any of the authors or publications are in any way stakeholders in the company, and the success or failure of the company has no bearing on the publication. The subsequent section outlining examples of dependent coverage doesn't give us much reason to doubt notability either: the articles clearly are not written by the company in any form and there is no reason to believe that these particular articles were paid for in otherwise reliably independent sources. In my opinion, the counter-arugment to its notability requries such a specific and strict view of NCORP that it runs afoul of . I don't agree that input from a shareholder invalidates a source as otherwise independent, and I do not agree that there is sufficient grounds to say NCORP as currently written prohibits these sources without a significant degree of interpretation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BURO)

Comment: 120 locations in 23 states is hardly a trivial size. The sources given in the article are of sufficient notability per . Absence of certain information is not in and of itself a reason to delete if sufficient notability is established. '''Ten Pound Hammer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: to Emmet County, Michigan#Economy where the subject is already mentioned. Does not meet ; just a private company going about its business and looking for franchisees. Not independently notable, with advertorial undertones. A brief mention in the target article is sufficient
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: this is still open?  I'm still a keep vote.  There's absolutely no reason to redirect a company with 125 franchises across the US to a page about the county their headquarters are located in.  The references are local newspaper coverage of their stores (which is local but independent; there's nothing excluding these in ), travel guides (some of which look like paid placement), and directories of franchise businesses (there's also stuff like https://www.tableau.com/solutions/customer/chocolatier-kilwins-sweetens-promotions-purchasing-90-locations-tableau this case study which obviously isn't independent).  In my view, the "local" coverage is sufficient here.  I'm not sure what type of reference would satisfy the delete voters, and I don't think it's reasonable to claim this type of business is never notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)