Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABNA Books


 * 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   delete. I was wrong--I too could not find anything reliable enough after several tries DGG (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ABNA Books

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

Procedural nom. This was prod tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. It verifiably exists and is potentially a notable organisation (although the current sources aren't great), so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. –  iride scent  22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep I think there are enough sources for notability, though the article needs a little trimming. DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What are those sources? The article has what appear to be blogs and thecompany's website as refs. Google News only linked to what appears to be a press release. Sounds like a great place for aspiring writers, but does it satisfy WP:ORG:"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Edison (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I visited the first couple external links supplied as references, and either these links are all dead, or they all seem to contain diddly squat about this business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete seems non-notable to me. A quick gsearch only turns up links to the company's own site Canadian   Nine  01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete complete lack of third party sources . LibStar (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (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.