Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blyth Inc.

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. Dakota 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, when I asked the author to establish notability the response was this. Sandy 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can't see anything other than company press releases after a quick search, but I'll change my opinion if reliable sources can be provided. Yomangani ^talk 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Talk:Blyth Inc.:
I've removed the proposed deletion tag. The article explains why the company deserves an entry, even in its stubbed state. --Duk 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please establish notability per WP:CORP. Nothing currently on the page does that. Sandy 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck WP:CORP. I needed to know about sterno's parent company a while back, it took some time to unravel - so I wrote this article after figuring it out. That's why I know the article worthwhile, in addition to the other facts about the company in the article. --Duk 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately WP:CORP is what the article will be judged on here. Yomangani ^talk 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CORP's introduction notes its purpose as removing spam/advertising. This isn't the case here. Following the letter of CORP when there is no violation of the spirit of CORP is just mind numbingly stupid. In this case a company is stealthy and flies under the radar, but is the parent company of various famous brand names. At least one of the brand names is famous enough to have its own article - but the parent company (allegedly) fails CORP. In a case like this CORP should be ignored. Also, any "Guideline" that proclaims that a company with ~5,000 employees not notable is fundamentally flawed and should be immediately deleted (assuming that Blyth actually fails CORP).--Duk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some sources are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That last article confirms as stated in WP that Blyth is "the nation's largest candlemaker." Pan Dan 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable for a candlemaker (although I agree that his comment was unwarranted and immature). Pan Dan has procured some reliable sources. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nation's largest candlemaker --Rehcsif 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would be helpful if someone added the plethora of sources that Pan Dan provided to the article.--Isotope23 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to expand. This company is notable enough for an article and I cannot fathom that there is no more information about this company out there. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per commentary. --Dennisthe2 18:28, 29 September 2006 (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.