Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious Moments, 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 Speedy keep No real argument for deletion provided, obvious snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Moments, Inc.

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep One of the most well-known porcelain figurine makers around, sold almost in every country, at the very least 50,000 G-hits alone for the figurines, and the article is well-sourced as it is outside of a couple of cite tags involving internal business. The bare minimum of research has not been done on this AfD and should have been done before bringing it to deletion. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry to revert to the "If this were deleted, that should be deleted" arguement... but if this were a valid deletion, then hundreds of others would be. Notable. SmokingNewton (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the "heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test. A titan in the world of kitsch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from article. And their figures have been in every Hallmark store, etc. for 20 years or more. There sometimes seems to be a prejudice on WP against businesses. If this was a fictional business on the Simpsons it would probably be the subject of 20 articles here, but a real business (outside of show business that is) somehow seems less important to WPers. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kitsch satisfies WP:N. Nomination failed to cite any reason. Please read WP:BEFORE and check for reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject before nominating. Google news archive search shows over 13,000 hits 1990 to present, for precious moments most about the article's subject.. Edison (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very well-known company, and a Google search brings up many reliable sources demonstrating notability. The article could use a few more independent sources, however. PDCook (talk) 18:57, 5 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.