Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombadil Publishing (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Bombadil Publishing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

[was at 'MfD' my error]


 * wrong venue - this is an article talk page with an article, so should be using WP:AFD instead if you want to scrap the article. I would be inclined to want to keep the article if it actually published 50000 authors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. (Apologies, ). The blurb reads like a vanity publisher, which would explain the high numbers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, that removes an objection, now it will have to be checked for real notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning to delete right now. It doesn't help that the article and the company's website are both written in PR-speak promotional blather so laden with buzzwords that I can't figure out what they actually do. They claim thousands of authors but a GBooks search yields just a small number of books of no apparent notability.  GNews does turn up some articles in various languages, but those I've looked at seem to be press releases or not particularly informative.  My review of articles in some of these languages is limited to whatever Google Translate reveals. If someone finds something more substantive, I'll certainly reconsider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a thicket of press releases, but I was able to find enough independent news coverage in various countries (including a couple of items already listed under References, although two have vanished unarchived) to recast the article and I believe to demonstrate that the company meets the general notability guideline. It helps that they got into a legal wrangle with a government ministry in El Salvador. There is presumably coverage out there about their financial problems in Sweden, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm inclined to keep the article, since they after all published a number of books while in existence. However, it needs to be rewritten to reflect that it is a defunct publisher, and all marketingspeak must be removed. Tomas e (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - no brainer. Obvious keep per WP:GNG, sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed my "leaning to delete" !vote above, given the major improvements of the sourcing and text of this article by Yngvadottir. I continue to have doubts about some of the claims made about the company, given the difficulty of actually locating very many of the the tens of thousands of books they apparently claim to have published (my searches at GBooks and Amazon.co.uk turn up very few), but at this point I imagine that can be addressed through appropriate editing.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (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.