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 keep. In view of subsequent improvements, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Woods Studios

[edit]

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

Sources consist of a HP item that,as is typical for them, is basically a disguised press release, and inclusion as one of a number of companies mentioned in a USA Today Home article. That's not enough for notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added a significant depth of independent secondary coverage (not evident on a preliminary Google search), satisfying WP:GNG. I have to go to sleep, but quite a bit more remains to be incorporated: [1][2][3][4] Because they seem to have a significant and reasonably savvy marketing team, I feel I should state that I've never heard of them before today and am not affiliated with them. FourViolas (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I meant to come back to this article and beef it up a bit more, but FourViolas has done the deed instead - thanks! (And for the record, I live on a different continent to them and wouldn't know them from a hole in the ground..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be specific: the company has been the topic of articles passing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in trade publications for woodworkers [5] [6] and marketers, a Vermont magazine and high-quality news site, the regional newspaper [7] [8], and national television (as noted in the paper). WP:CORP#Primary criteria only requires two such sources. FourViolas (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2016 (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.