Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiolbassa Sausage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiolbassa Sausage[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. One source was added in response to my PROD, but both it's reliablilty and the independence of its content are dubious. Previously deleted and salted as Kiolbassa * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm landing on a weak Keep. I've added a bit, checked the refs, searched for more; there's a biz journals article that looks like it might be sigcov that I can't get to, added that into a Further reading section in case someone else can. It's got two instance of coverage by Forbes former staff, which is a bit hard to assess, and obviously it would be better if it were two different non-local sources. Lots of local coverage, and coverage in an industry mag. I guess what puts me kind of over the top toward keep is the fact it's been in business independently for 75 years, which for a food business of this type is practically a claim to notability all by itself. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee the San Antonio Business Journal article is sub-titled "Kiolbassa CEO talks growth opportunities, company culture and legacy" and is largely what they say about themselves. S0091 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that subtitle, but headlines can be so misleading, thanks for clarifying. It's a cusp article, I'd say. 1949 and still a family business, and of this size...that's unusual. I dunno. I will, however, definitely be having my husband look for it next time he's at the grocery. :D Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to get this discussion that seems to have fallen off the radar entirely back on the radar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pppery (alt) (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.