Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book in a Box


 * 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. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Book in a Box

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot see how this book publisher can pass WP:NCORP. Founded in 2014, and employs 29 people. None of the cites amounts to much. Edwardx (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: When we look a book publishers, we don't necessarily see them as corporations per WP:NCORP but have looked at the cultural impact of their work. /Julle (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Response No we don't - notability isn't inherited. Each book published by a book publisher may have a cultural impact but that is down to the contents of each book, it is not attributable to the publisher.  HighKing++ 18:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To say that a publisher would inherit notability from the books they publish, and that their work from a cultural aspect is irrelevant, is akin to saying that a writer is not notable because of notable books. A book is not something that comes in, gets clad in covers and walks out the door. A publisher forms and changes the books they publish. They decide on the norms of the cultural market. Much like a theatre troupe, which can also be a company, we have historically not judged merely for their financial success as corporations. This was, however, a side note; I have no opinion on whether it has any bearing on this publisher, which of course has to pass WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete At first glance this article appears to be sufficiently referenced but a closer look at each reference in the article reveals that not a single one meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most appear to rely on interviews/quotations with Tucker Max and are not intellectually independent and do not contain original and independent opinion or analysis. From WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Others I can locate such as podcasts or blogs are not regarded as reliable sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Strong promotional undertones with content such as "In August 2015, Max and Obront published a book, The Book in a Box Method...", failing WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2018 (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.