Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicks n' More


 * 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 a clear keep. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wicks n&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All this company received was an SBA grant (which are given all the time) and a mention on Rush Limbaugh when they mailed him a bunch of candles. The claim that they are the "largest hand-poured pillar candle manufacturer in the U.S" was not independent, rather from somebody within the company during a story in a regional newspaper article. --Seascic T/C 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Not only mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on air, but also covered by MSNBC. Obviously notable.-- Bedford  Pray  01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because somebody is mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on the air does not make them notable. The company mailed him a box of candles and he mentioned them. If somebody were to bake him cookies, they don't deserve a Wikipedia. Association does not define notability. As for the MSNBC article, that is verifiability, but I still don't think one article in there qualifies for notability. --Seascic T/C 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here's a good article about them in the business section of MSNBC.  They're not publicly traded, they're not a huge company, but they get a fair amount of coverage, and you can find their candles all over the place.  Sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and most important, they're verifiable by reliable sources. Antandrus  (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if the user promises to expand the page with third party sources and begins to do so. Brand new pages shouldn't be AfD'd. You have to give the people a chance to expand. Tagging editor placed a the AfD nom on it less than an hour after creation. Clearly, something is wrong with the process of people checking these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of the wordings are less-than ideal, which would trigger the AFD (which is already an improvement over a speedy!) in many editors. Circeus (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If people are that impatient to stop "vandalism" or other such things, then maybe they need to stop working in such areas all together. The potential harm, as this situation proves, is too great a risk to the encyclopedia. People need to be given time, and this is just all together rude. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I did have the "In Use" tag on it, which should illustrate that it was being worked on, and that it was premature to tag it, and inconsiderate to conflict with an active edit by another user.-- Bedford Pray  03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the existence of the references is why I removed the speedy tags that an editor had placed there.  The article, although far from perfect does show promise and should be improved, not deleted. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Deadly&forall;ssassin 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article has been verified and reference. The article seriously needs to be wikified though. – Jerry  teps  04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, everything looks in order here. RFerreira (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (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.