Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Author Solutions


 * 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   No consensus (default keep). Most of this discussion was whether or not to merge this; this is the wrong venue for that discussion, which never reached a consensus, anyway. It is clear that delete is not the outcome of this discussion, ergo: no consensus.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Author Solutions

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

Delete promotional article about nn "print-on-demand" publisher Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- How can you say it's a "nonnotable" print on demand publisher? It's the parent company of iUniverse and AuthorHouse, probably the two most notable such companies in existence, with tens if not hundreds of thousands of books published between them and countless news articles from huge media companies, partnership with Barnes & Noble, etc. I mean, geez, it's off the scale notable. If it was just a holding company for one or the other, I'd say redirect to the article that already exists, but since it's two and they are almost equally notable, a redirect isn't a reasonable solution. Not even seeing how the article is promotional, as it's just matter-of-fact bland. DreamGuy (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added comment: Speedy Keep AND Oppose merge. AuthorHouse and iUniverse are the names by which the company is most notable. Wikipedia naming conventions say those have to stay. And they are separate (for now anyway, companies may combine eventually), so can't really be merged. Leaving the article on the partent company certainly doesn't harm anything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Added links to articles meeting WP:RS for sourcing of legitimate information; removed non-notable claims sourced to primary website. However, couldn't find the specific and significant press coverage that shows this company is "off the scale notable". I, too, have relationships with BN, Amazon, Google and even Dollywood, but what does that get me? Flowanda | Talk 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Give me a break. You didn't have, for example, Barnes & Noble advertising your services on the shelves where they sold "how to write" books in every store. And if you haven't found off the scale notable press coverage you didn't try very hard. Google iUniverse or AuthorHouse. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge both iUniverse and AuthorHouse into Author Solutions. Seems the most reasonable thing to do. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I support the merge proposed by Squidfryerchef. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Linguist At Large  07:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Both AuthorHouse and iUniverse are independently notable.  Merging the articles makes no sense at all.  We wouldn't merge Dixons (UK) and PC World (retailer) just because both are owned by the same parent company (DSG International (retailer)), would we? JulesH (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we? The companies are being merged in real life ( the iUniverse article even says its offices are being moved to those of AuthorHouse ), seems reasonable to merge the articles on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge, as the article is not reliably sourced, and fails WP:CORP for lack of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It absolutely 'DOES NOT fail WP:CORP, not by a long shot. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have looked into this at all with any amount of effort and seriously come to that conclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Also consider merging AuthorSolutions into AuthorHouse until there's enough info for the parent company to stand on its own. Notability isn't inherited, and the existing sources just aren't enough to satisfy "significant" coverage. DreamGuy's comments to BN's promotion seems to reference IUniverse, not ASI. The PW and wsj articles are about news items that involve ASI, but more as examples than anything else. And even the Entreprenuer article (which seems to be a reprint of a profile from a pub called "Indiana Business Journal") weasels the claims made by ASI. And googling ASI -- which is what *this* article is about -- brings up little more than pages and pages of press releases, other than the articles *I* added last week. Flowanda | Talk 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It owns both companies, both of which have articles, and both of which have demonstrated notability. The only way a merge would work is if all of them were merged, and then you'dhave to do extensive rewriting to make that article make sense. There is no compelling reason to merge (and certainly not to delete). DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose a merge The other two articles establish notability for their own articles. There is no need for their content to be merged into this article. No comment on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Davewild (talk) 11:13, 20 December 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.