Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookBaby


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

BookBaby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "No indication of a ny notability, does not meet WP:ORG." De-PRODded by article creator with appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, meh; maybe squeaks by to meet WP:GNG, mentioned ad nauseum in e-book articles, , ,, ,  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I endorsed the PROD and believe the reason given is still valid. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG based on sources cited by —Мандичка, not all of which are just mentions of BookBaby, plus heres another one  from Mick Rooney of The Independent Publishing Magazine who discusses the pros an cons of using them. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "Alliance of Independant Authors" talks of BookBaby here, and compares it with CreateSpace/Amazon and others. "The Book Designer" made an interview of Steven Spatz, the President of BookBaby. Also here  at "Bibliocrunch". Dodeeric (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not seeing any reliable coverage sufficient to pass Notability (companies). Sources cited above mention the company in passing, or are unreliable (blogs, press releases, and other spam). Prime example of company-entry-spam what I mentioned in my signpost oped few weeks back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More inclined to delete because searches here, here and here found results (keep to mind, some of the News and thefreelibrary links are PR) but I'm not seeing much significance. Searches with browser found some of the links listed above and Books found nothing. This has received considerable coverage for how-tos and publishing your own book but I'm not sure it's entirely notable at this time and some of the links (particuarly thefreelibrary) which mention some collaborations but they're not much. I'm willing to keep when they've received a little better coverage. SwisterTwister   talk  06:11, 26 May 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.