Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookNU


 * 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

BookNU

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG as lacking significant, reliable, independent coverage. — Rebbing  talk  04:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the initial PRODder. My search revealed insufficient reliable sources to meet the WP:ORG threshold. /wiae   /tlk  05:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because the subject has been covered by the No. 1 Photography Magazine in India, this signifies the subject's notability. Getcharstar (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sidetrack, but I'm skeptical that the website in question represents the pinnacle of photographic journalism anywhere, especially all of India. The article serving as our article's sole reference wasn't proofread (e.g., "It solves problem and at the same time, they’re doing their part for the society."), has no by-line, and, despite having nothing to do with photography, is tagged as a lens review. — Rebbing  talk  08:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I reported the same to them and they told me that by default all the posts are marked as 'lens review' but by mistake they forgot to remove it in this article. They seem to have corrected it now, however I got no reply for the proof-reading part. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's enough coverage about the topic in other languages. I was there 2 weeks back and saw an article about them in the paper. The founders were also covered individually in other articles and I could find a link for the same. (The founder has linked multiple press articles on his blog). In my opinion, this should be kept. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Cites a single source. I don't see anything when I click the thumbnails described above by 13.76.37.239, so I can't determine if they constitute significant coverage of the company. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, and using WP:INDT's Indian English language Newspapers search turned up nothing. No objection to draftify if the author needs time to add citations to reliable sources. Worldbruce (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce The images are accessible. It could be because you are on slow internet? I'm not sure, but anyways, either you can click on thumbnail and wait for it to load or else, middle click on thumbnail so that it open up in new tab and then wait for the image to load. He, the owner of blog, should have optimized the images' size. Anyway, please try this and fyi, those news clippings are in Hindi language and as I can read it, I can say that they are from very popular press houses. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at a couple of the newspaper extracts and they were about the founder of the company and don't mention BookNU at all. Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - To clarify, searches won't fetch anything because most of it is covered in another language and mostly in other media form (eg: print/air). We could find only a single source in English but considering the fact that its from a very reputed Indian magazine, this article should be kept. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? /wiae   /tlk  13:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The community at Wikipedia, i.e. everyone contributing/writing/being a part of Wikipedia. 13.76.37.239 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. Sometimes new contributors aren't aware of the general "one person, one account rule". Apologies if my tone was curt. /wiae   /tlk  14:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial organization "they have donated a thousand books''. This is A7 territory.  DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a newly founded company with no further convincing notability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:40, 25 February 2016 (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.