Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shy blinds

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 delete. Not notable by Wikipedia's standard. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shy blinds

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

Does not appear to be a company with any notability beyond the fact that it exists. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shy Blinds article complies with notability requirements – It is a well known company in Queensland and a household name in window furnishings. Johnlegislator (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have two points regarding this contributor. First, has he read WP:Notability before making such a claim? His very sentence indicates that he may have misunderstood the requirements. The article has given no evidence of notability beyond the claim of ~~receiving~~ being a finalist for a small business award. I would argue that this in no way contributes to a company's notability, as almost any small business which is a member of a local trade association can arrange to be ~~presented with~~ nominated for an award. Anecdotally, my parents live in Brisbane and neither have heard of this company. Second, and I make it clear straightaway that this is speculation, but I believe users Johnlegislator, Tanahboys and Clintmurrumbateman are all the same person (Tanahboys may be the original account) as Johnlegislator and Clintmurrumbateman's edits are only on this article. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that Tanahboys is not Johnlegislator or Clintmurrumbateman. I am real person and there is one of me :) - I live in Canberra now, but was from Brisbane. Shy Blinds is quite well known up there and I know they sponsored the Channel 7 Tennis telecast last month (I was there on Holidays and it on the screen every 5 minutes) - they are well established brand and a notable entity. You are welcome to contact me directly on my mobile number/Skype and discuss your concerns if you would like (please post a hotmail/gmail email address and I will send it to you) - I have taken some of the feedback and removed peacock terms and improved references - sorry this is my mistake, I would like to improve this aspect of my wikipedia editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanahboys (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to exchange contact details, thanks. All discussion can and will take place on this page. You've said again that Shy Blinds is notable; now, can you please show that the company is notable according to WP:Notability as this is pretty much the only way that you will be able to support the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. Just saying "This company is notable etc. etc." is not enough. WP:Notability requires verifiable sources. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - There is a lack of independent reliable sources covering this company to establish notability as needed for inclusion in wikipedia. The local awards are insufficient to establish notability and the only coverage I could find was an incidental mention here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will respond to the notability requirements shortly. But in the mean time I would like to point out some other companies that are listed on wikipedia that that just like this listing but have deemed to be 'notable' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_(company); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folli_Follie; a whole bunch of them at...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Greece ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_the_Philippines ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Germany etc the list goes on and on . Yes some of these companies are quite large, but there are many that are small and niche players. Their references are also poor. I think the Shy Blinds artilce is better than many of them. Instead of trying to delete the article, I would like your help in improving it and thus improving the richness and value of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.206.22 (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment One of the principles of Wikipedia is its egalitarian ethos. It seems to me that the issue of notability is quite subjective. Some of us believe that the company is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion and some do not. So, by way of comparison I offer the following articles on Australian companies that are currently featured on Wikipedia – Retriever Communications, WorleyParsons, Allphones, Cbus & Downer Edi (this is only a small selection – I expect that I could produce many more if required). I believe that these companies are comparable and in fact some of these articles are not referenced at all. I firmly believe that it would not be fair to delete the Shy article without subjecting the same fate to at least the articles I have mentioned and possibly many more. Johnlegislator (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. In response to Kittensandrainbows, I too can assure you that I am only one person and not any of the other people you have 'speculated'. The only editing I have done on this page was spelling, grammar and expression. I too am new to the Wikipedia world but look forward to more opportunities to edit, contribute and champion the underdogs. Johnlegislator (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence or lack of existence of other articles really has no bearing on this article. Those other articles may also fail to meet the inclusion criteria, but haven;t yet been nominated for deletion. I encourage those who are advocating keeping this article to provide evidence of third party coverage in reliable sources. Stating that they think it is notable doesn't wash. Saying other companies have articles so shy blinds should also won't fly. Reliable sources is waht is needed. Also, please only one !vote per customer. If you have more to add, please prefix it with something like comment. -- Whpq (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment What Whpq said. However, if you look at those articles you mentioned, specifically in the References section, you can see a collection of third-party coverage in reliable sources. This is what your article is missing. It's not a question of "improving the article", it's a question of "is your company notable according to WP:Notability. Whether you think Wikipedia is egalitarian, or whether your company is good, or whatever -- notability is not "quite subjective". There are established guidelines that I kindly suggest you refer to once more. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: New user 121.127.206.22 has joined the discussion with a "Keep" line. I humbly suggest this user be counted as being one of the three users I mentioned in my entry above, because again, the scope of 121.127.206.22's edits is limited to this article and a related disambiguation page. I guess it's on of the three that was logged out when they posted their latest comment. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nob notable due to lack of evidence to the contrary. 130 unique ghits, none of which are reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2010 (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.