Deletion of The Unseen Bean

Comment: New information provides multiple instances of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The central issue here ought to be whether the subject meets the standard for ''significant'' news coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.  Let's look at those cited by the article and a few by AfD commenters here.  The Armstrong tweets are a distraction and don't deserve serious treatment; let's ignore them.  The Reuters blog coverage was a human interest piece tangential to their reportage on the DNC.  (Had this seen broader exposure beyond a reporter's blog, it might meet the benchmark.)  The Ashmore piece appears in a Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired newsletter; its target is a narrow, special-interest audience.  And, not to belabor this, but the Yelp pieces are predominantly reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece.  Neither significance nor depth of news coverage are established; the article fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: I guess I should have done this at the beginning of the deletion discussion.  The article has been rewritten from scratch and notability has been established per the |general notability guideline via significant and exclusive coverage in multiple, independent, |reliable sources. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: Without any additional sources, this just manages to fail . The Twitter reference is not even worth discussing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)