Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book trade in the United Kingdom


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Book trade in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like an assignment for school, WP:NOTESSAY in my opinion Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Question of style notwithstanding (I think it's fine, but YMMV), this seems to clearly be a topic which is the subject of multiple, substantial, independently published pieces of coverage. Passes GNG. Search for "Bookselling" for more Google hits, such as Stuart Jeffries, "How Waterstone's killed bookselling," Guardian, Nov. 9, 2009. Carrite (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep "I don't like" the article but the topic is certainly notable. Borock (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, as approver of the article. The topic is well-known. The article uses secondary sources as it should. We don't get rid of articles purely on style. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Its absolutely OK policy-wise and I think it reads nicely too. Poor AfD nomination however – could do better.Thincat (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with History of books. Some of the content here applies to a worldwide view of the topic, and even the British specific bits would generally belong there. If merging makes that article too big or lop sided, then keeping it as a spin off article on the main topic would be okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout Gbawden. AfD is not for cleanup.  (I believe the article should be titled Publishing in the United Kingdom or Publishing industry in the United Kingdom though since book trade redirects to publishing.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The British use the term "book trade" to refer both to publishing books and operating bookstores. So does the article in question. The book trade redirect probably needs fixing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I have turned book trade into a disambiguation page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 16 February 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.