Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Interiors and Gifts


 * 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. Sourced indicate notability through GNG. Please remember that notability is not temporary. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Home Interiors and Gifts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable company fails to comply with WP:GNG. The content seems promotional and breaches the WP:NPOV. The information provided here is supported solely by a single source. No clear reason for further existence of this subject. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete  Totally not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It should be listed as a defunct company, but it was a big deal back in the day. Reliable sources abound.IceFishing (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome since nothing comes up in Google search. If abundent sources do exist and the article is kept, they should be added to it. So, what and where are they?
 * For a start, there is  this PhD dissertation:  The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader, Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449. IceFishing (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And coverage in this PhD dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955. Manko, Katina Lee. University of Delaware, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2001. 3013632. IceFishing (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hhhmmm. So a few general comments. First, dissertations are not usually considered reliable sources because they are mostly primary and aren't peer reviewed. Second, neither of these are about the topic. But about other subjects that probably only mention the company in passing. Which wouldn't meet the whole "substantial" thing. Third, there's no way to even find out because the first one is only mentioned as existing in a Google search but not accessible anywhere and the second one returns 0 results. generally, whatever details a source might contain its completely worth if its not varifiable and can't be added to an article because there's no way to access it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's easy to download in any research library. I just downloaded The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader and it is a detailed history of the founding and history of this corporation under her management. Anyone interested in sourcing a good article can do so using this dissertation and other sources, some of which are now on the page.  PhD dissertations certainly are reliable sources.IceFishing (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "PhD dissertations certainly are reliable sources", wrong. PhD dissertations aren't automatically reliable sources "because PhD dissertation." Per Reliable sources, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Also, "Completed dissertations which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." So what I said is correct. The important thing is if the desertation is a primary source or not. Also, it's in extremely bad faith IMO to add sources to an article that has an active AfD containing an unresolved discussion about the reliability of those sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, phrases like "extremely bad faith" should be reserved for those who vandalize, troll, and violate copyright. It's a good faith move to edit the article to improve it during AfD. I've never heard that there needs to be consensus on the classification of a source prior to improving the article. Next: if the dissertation went through IRB, which I believe all theses and dissertations published by Proquest do, it is peer reviewed. Furthermore, it's the history of a company, and while that could include some original research such as interviews and case study, academic writing in the humanities typically relies heavily upon research from reliable sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A few things, I did think about what word to use as a caveat to the bad faith comment, and "extremely" was what I came up with because that's how it feels to me. To me, bad faith is mostly a personal evaluation of someones behaviors and I felt like the users actions where in bad faith to me, as a participant in the discussion. Why participate in a discussion about something if your just going to ignore the other person and do the thing your discussing anyway while the conversation is going on? To me, that's bad faith. To me, vandalism is a very specific thing against the community that is above and beyond being bad faith. I didn't say there needed to be consensus on the classification of a source prior to improving the article. I said it was in bad faith to do so. "improving" an article is subject though and an AfD is a community based process, that involves other people's opinions. Otherwise, it's completely pointless to participate in it.


 * Further, if all the dissertations in Proquest go through the peer review process, then why is the caveat about them in the reliable sources article even needed? That's what I'm going off of. As a for profit company that makes money simply off of having dissertations, I'd bet their standards are pretty low. Also, I don't think a dissertation going through an IRB is a Wikipedia standard of notability. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to be in peer reviewed journals. As all PhD dissertations go through an IRB. There's a brief discussion of IRB's on Ethically researching Wikipedia and I agree with the sentiment there. Mainly "there is no universal IRB - it is all local, and different boards have different interpretations that make them more or less strict than others." Along with "IRB requirements differ between countries." Although, I know that's not directly related to them establishing notability, but I think those same issues kill notability with other sources. Especially the regional thing. Someone who has their PhD dissertation reviewed by say an IRB in a local California State University wouldn't automatically become a notable expert in their field due to it. Just like regional newspapers aren't good or reliable sources because of the vast differences in quality and journalistic standards between them. If you can find somewhere on Wikipedia that disagrees with that though I'm totally open to it.
 * Allriiiiiiiiight... 1. Of course you can continue to question the source, but you don't have it in front of you, and as the other editor does, so that editor is better informed than either you or I. You do imply that there should be (not must be) some degree of consensus if you say the editor acted in extremely bad faith because you feel that your say regarding the assumed shortcomings of a source that you have not viewed has not been heard... Disagreeing is one thing, but accusing of bad faith? Ouch. We are to assume good faith. If you don't want the source used, or if you question the editor's use of it, get access to it through interlibrary loan or by other means and then tell us specifically how it falls short of Wikipedia's standards. Or ask the editor about its makeup. 2. Regional and local newspapers are reliable sources and follow journalistic standards. Their staff attend the same journalism schools, cover events of similar importance to their audience, and can be sued for libel. A company newsletter or a blog post, though, would have those "vast differences in quality and journalistic standards." 3. Some dissertations and theses contain original research, so Wikipedia is right to all too briefly explain the ins and outs of that type of work. Bottom line is that the content, citations and all, is king, rather than perceived esteem of its authorship. One should proceed to use dissertations where one can. 4. I never said Proquest was peer-reviewed. 5. The dissertation doesn't need to be notable. It needs to be reliable. 6. You forgot to sign and you provided a redlink. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not questioning the source per say, I'm questioning how the source fits in with the guideline about using dissertations and more specifically where it came from. Those are completely different thing. Since like you say, I don't have the source the in front of me. Only the origin of it. Which is 100% something the notability guidelines discuss and so is completely within my right to question. I would really care less though if the guidelines didn't specifically say something about it. Ultimately they aren't my standards and its not on me if you don't think they are adequate. 2. I did ask the editor what the content of the article was. Mainly if it was primary or not. Obviously, this is a conversation. I probably would have gotten a response eventually if you hadn't of involved yourself. I'm not just blowing hot air to hear my own voice here. 3. It's on the person suggesting the source to make sure its reliable. It's not on everyone else to subscribe to some obscure, pay walled website or whatever to verify reliability. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest otherwise and that I should subscribe to ProQuest if I want to find out if its a good source 4. Yeah obviously regional newspapers follow journalistic standards. That doesn't mean those standards don't have variations though. And no, my local newspapers journalist did not go to the same school as a New York Times one. There's nothing wrong with that, but if your talking about one versus other on the same subject, I'm pretty sure the New York Times journalist would just be more authoritative. It's not an attack on the local guy, It's just life and how academics work. Same goes for journal published articles versus not. Again, the journal published standard for academic writing isn't my standard. Plus, it was an international company. There should at least be some intentional or at least national coverage of it. 5. Yeah, I fully agree content is king, but quality does matter. "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." In academic writing who reviews it or not determines the quality and reliability of it. The editor didn't even add content to the article based off the source anyway though. They just slapped the references on stuff that was already written. So you can't claim it's all about the content when literally nothing from the sources was added to the article. 6. Esteem of authors, or editors, does matter. Again, reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." How is that not about perceived esteem? Can you really call a PhD student someone who is "regarded as an authoritative" source on an international company? Nothing against them, but Personally I wouldn't. "the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." 7. It needs to be none trivial coverage of the topic or to put it another, "notable coverage of the topic in the article." Which is what I meant. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The New Times article snippet is definitely trivial. Hopefully we can at least agree on that if nothing else. Christ, that was way to long. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh honey. Thank you for sharing what is on your heart. If you reread my comment you'd see that I never suggested you pay for access to anything... you can get dissertations and many other resources for free if you ask. I see that academia and journalism are not your native land. I have an encyclopedia to write, so you go on and take the last word. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only source I have a problem with isn't a library book and it's only available from a pay site. Which means that I can't use an inter-library loan system to get access to it. And yes, I would have to pay to read it. It's on a pay site. Which you already knew. Also, your wrong on my academic experience. I'm not going to bother listing my many academic accomplishments though because anyone can participate in this website. Regardless of their education level. It's an extremely weak way to try and de-legitimize someone that you disagree with. Plus, most of what I wrote was quotes from guidelines. Clearly your more concerned with other users education levels then you are the rules. Which is your prerogative. Having nothing better then "your not in journalism. So how dare you have an opinion" is pretty weak though. I asked IceFishing again if the dissertations where primary or not. I still haven't gotten an answer. Given that and your utterly vapid response to honest criticism of the sources, by both me and other people, don't be surprised if they get removed and the article gets deleted. Ultimately that's the point in an AfD, not to insult others over their education levels like you decided to do. Anyway, enjoy your fake elitism. There's plenty of others around with the same mentality you can share it with. To bad it comes at the cost of Wikipedia's quality. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the two doctoral dissertations, Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press has discussions of this corporation that are both in depth and extensive. Especially in Chapter 5, but also in the Introduction and elsewhere. IceFishing (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IceFishing, since you have access to the two disertations are they primary or secondary research? Also, do you plan to actually add content from them to the article? or are you just going to call it good at pasting them as sources to content that was already there? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. If sources exist then it should be kept, even if they are not cited in the article. Please stop badgering IceFishing for finding reliable sources that substantiate notability. WP:PAYWALLed content and paper sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they meet WP:RS. buidhe 14:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No crap? Except IceFishing cited them in the article. They just didn't add anything to the article. Wikipedia isn't a bibliography and adding five sources to a single sentence is citation overkill. Especially if no content from the sources is added to it. I'm not the only one calling the user out for it. Rightly so. 100% a user shouldn't indiscriminately ad sources to an article, while disregarding their usability as a source or if they actually add anything, just to get their way on an AfD. So I don't know what your going off about. I'm not sure what your whole thing about me having something against paywall's is about either. If you bothered to look at the sources you'd see the New York Times article IceFishing added is paywalled. I could really give a crap less about it though, because my issue had nothing to do with having to pay for a source. Thanks for your baseless comment that added absolutely nothing to the discussion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd be happy to summarize the NYT article for you. I have access through my local library. Vexations (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to that id appreciate it. I'd like to at least improve the article if it's kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Witten by Allen R.Myerson, published as "COMPANY NEWS; From At-Home Parties To a $1 Billion Buyout" on July 13, 1994 (219 words)
 * Summary: Home Interiors and Gifts was founded in 1957 by Mary C. Crowley. Her son, Donald J. Carter (born August 1934) sold Home Interiors and Gifts to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in a $1 billion leveraged buyout. Home Interiors and Gifts sells silk and polyester flower arrangements, porcelain puppies and other household items at home parties. Sales are over $850 million a year, with a sales force of 42,000. Mary C. Crowley used the name of her second husband. She died in 1987. Crowley was introduced to selling items at home by Mary Kay Ash. Mary Kay Ash married Mary C. Crowley's brother. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary: Home Interiors and Gifts was founded in 1957 by Mary C. Crowley. Her son, Donald J. Carter (born August 1934) sold Home Interiors and Gifts to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst in a $1 billion leveraged buyout. Home Interiors and Gifts sells silk and polyester flower arrangements, porcelain puppies and other household items at home parties. Sales are over $850 million a year, with a sales force of 42,000. Mary C. Crowley used the name of her second husband. She died in 1987. Crowley was introduced to selling items at home by Mary Kay Ash. Mary Kay Ash married Mary C. Crowley's brother. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. A couple of old, arcane sources don't make it notable. Dorama285 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those "old, arcane sources" are:
 * Myerson, Allen R. (13 July 1994). "From At-Home Parties To a $1 Billion Buyout". New York Times.
 * A 2001 doctoral dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955. Manko, Katina Lee. PhD dissertation. University of Delaware, 2001.
 * A 1989 book from the University of Chicago Press: Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press.
 * A two articles in the Dallas Morning News, one from 2006 and one from 2008.
 * In sum, the article does need improvement, but Dorama285's inaccurate comment is not a useful contribution to this conversation.IceFishing (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I get many hits for this company's activities all over the United States in various newspaper archives. It was one of the most successful direct sales companies of its era and is relevant to women's history. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Now that the AfD on Mary C. Crowley was closed as keep, the title should at least be a redirect. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources give credence to its notability of that time. It's not much but it's something. Businesses fail, what else is new? ⌚️ (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that I just now added to the article the fact that Crowley's son Don Carter (businessman) joined Mom's business after he grew up and grew out of a wild youth and served int he Air Force (they had a draft back then); his obituary in the Wall Street Journal is headlined: Don Carter, High-School Dropout, Brought NBA Basketball to Dallas Air Force vet joined his mother's home-décor firm and made a fortune. However, what the article really needs is for someone to read the add the books that discuss this business and the doctoral dissertation written about this business (The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader, Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449,) and improve the page.IceFishing (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors in the simultaneous AfD about the company founder Articles for deletion/Mary C. Crowley  reached a consensus NOT to merge that article into this one.IceFishing (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And I want to point out that editor Abishe, who nominated both this page and Mary C. Crowley gives no indication of having searched for sources on either article, and that Abishe has a track record of slapdash nominations of articles for deletion 40% of which have been kept of speedy kept. I do not remember how I stumbled into  this one, only that it, and the article about the founder, while poorly sourced, gave every indication of being about notable topics.  Certainly they could have been marked for improvement, but nominating them for deletion looked to me like the nominating editor had not bothered to read them, or google them.  IceFishing (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's far. As much as I'm against citation bombing to keep an article I don't like people requesting an article be deleted without researching it first. Although, it's worth a thought that maybe the user did look it up but didn't find anything because they lacked access to the pay sites you do. Which shouldn't reflect badly on them or their RfD's. I had the same problem to. It's just the nature of the thing unfortunately. Especially with older companies where the works they are mentioned in tends to get more obscure. I'd also add that just because the there is a kept AfD about a person who creates a company, that doesn't mean anything about the notability of the company itself. Maybe if it was about mentioning it in that persons article, but not to the worthiness of having it's own. So Mary C. Crowley being kept doesn't exempt Abishe from doing AfD's on articles related to her. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Re: WP:NOTTEMPORARY something can be more or less irrelevant or defunct in the present, but if it was once notable it still passes GNG. Ongoing coverage is not a requirement. This applies to everything from governments and individuals, and yes, even companies. IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't even seem to be notable in the past. Most or all of the few sources being cited that are from the present. If it was notable when it was around that wouldn't be the case. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks as though the lack of access to newspaper archives about which you complain above is limiting your ability to see the news coverage that this company got in the mid-twentieth century, when it was widely covered not only in the business pages, but in a quaint section then known as the Women's page.IceFishing (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or I just don't think the coverage provided so far is reliable, broad, or indepth enough. That includes the paysite stuff and is totally my prerogative. The existance of "wide coverage" is completely pointless if 99% of it is useless and doesn't add to the article. Whatever you feel like telling yourself though. Feel free to continue going off about "wide coverage" the company got, like that's the only thing that matters. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: A few minutes on Newspapers.com found a ton of coverage in newspapers:
 * "Eight More Industrial Park Acres Sold", McKinney Daily Courier-Gazette (Nov 26, 1972).
 * "Home Interiors founder motivates her sales staff with spiritual philosophy" by O.J. Parsons, Spokane Spokesman-Review (Oct 31, 1984).
 * "Home Interiors & Gifts Is Leader in Direct Sales", The Madison Messenger (Oct 19, 2001).
 * "Meredith backs line of products" by Patt Johnson, The Des Moines Register (June 10, 2003).
 * "Home Interiors knows it's what's on the inside that counts" by Joanne Bockman, The Des Moines Register (February 10, 2005).
 * "Home and Garden Party acquires Home Interiors and Gifts, Inc" by Steve Bandy, The Marshall News Messenger (December 19, 2008).
 * All of them are articles that are entirely and directly about Home Interiors & Gifts. I added these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. There's no question that there's reliable, broad, in-depth coverage in news sources.
 * By the way, if anyone wants access to Newspapers.com in order to check out these sources, you can get access for free for a year through The Wikipedia Library. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. I didn't know about that. Does it matter that much what you put when your applying where it asks why you want access to the resource? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should tell them what kind of articles you generally work on. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You should have no problems with getting access to newspapers.com: they have tons of accounts. Sadads (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the sources, and the work of Toughpigs -- plenty of evidence that it had a long term impact on the American decorative economy. Sadads (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.