Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mountain Press


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Mountain Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first source in this article is a directory entry. The second is the company's own site. The balance is a list of books, each cited to a review or sales page, with the name of the publisher - yet each is presented as a "reference" in the article. There is no substantial coverage of the subject itself. Its website is... amateurish. Yes, there is Comic Sans. The catalogue is small, the authors undistinguished, and that's to be expected since they don't seem to want anyone who has an agent. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete First, I want to say that it would have been easier to review this if nom hadn't removed all but one sentence from the page. It is true that the remainder was un-sourced, but the content there would have given reviewers some clues as to where to look for additional info. I recommend looking at the August 1 version. Finally, though, I find no sources about this company. I looked in the local newspaper, Asheville Citizen Times, and didn't find anything. (Their interface is a bit hard to navigate using search, however.) LaMona (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I nominated it precisely because after I had checked the sources and removed the poorly-sourced material, there was basically nothing left. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't mean to be accusatory, and I can understand how that happened. I apologize if it came out sounding harsh, but other reviewers might get more out of the earlier version of the page, which has more content. LaMona (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, not seeing any evidence of notability ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP.  Mini  apolis  00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of evidence that sufficient reliable sources exist to create a neutrally worded article about the subject without resorting to original research. Adding to the confusion, the publisher in Ashville, NC is not the only business to call itself Black Mountain Press.  There was a publisher based in  Cave Creek, Arizona that was in operation no later than 1975 and still in business under the same name in 1996.  A third Black Mountain Press appears to be based in Aberystwyth, Wales.  As normal searches for information fails to turn up anything substantial for any of these three publishers, there is no reason to belive any of them sastisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Allen3 talk 12:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (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.