Deletion of Shy blinds

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 otability'''. 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2009/10/07/our-own-blind-man-rubs-shoulders-with-hoges-kenny/ here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: See .  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Doesn't meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)