Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahadada 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahadada Books

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

No reliable, independent, nontrivial sources establishing notability given. Wording at the end clearly indicates either copyright infringement or COI editing. No results for "Ahadada Books" on a Google News search. Same search on Google Books shows some titles released and trivial mentions in other sources. Regular web search doesn't show any sources that would meet all criteria to establish notability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Publishing notable literary authors is how a small literary press can be notable. This one is. DGG (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you should well know, notability is not transferable and needs to be demonstrated on its own. Instead of just insisting it's notable, if you think it really is then you ought to be able to easily prove it. Are there even any reliable sources showing that they contracted with these authors to publish their work (no that that in itself would get them their own rticle, as compared to a brief mention in some other article with notability actually established). DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it not be the same as equating it to WP:School's "by virtue of such factors as notable alumni" ? The mentioned Authors are, in effect, Alumni of the same publishing house? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are some gnews hits, as one would expect, and it is easy enough to verify that they publish these notable people. But I think we should treat publishers more like we treat authors and academics, as seeing their notability as transferred from their works. One can always think of notability as being transferred from something else. We write guidelines to say how this should be done in particular cases. There are far fewer publishers out there than authors and academics, and they present much less of a BLP concern, and articles on them are particularly helpful in building an encyclopedia. (in judging source reliability or notability).  At the worst, a merge to Jesse Glass, not deletion would be in order.John Z (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Definitely more substantial Google results than the nominator claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable alumni Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep i agree substantially with John Z. When it becomes obvious that a publisher is working with at least some notable authors, and is clearly not a vanity press or publisher of trivia, we should generally allow articles, even if not well known. i worked in book wholesaling for years, and while a lot of these presses are not very well known, they are notable for having helped launch major authors. this one seems to fall solidly in that category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  12:24, 5 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.