Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Books


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation Books

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was incorrectly listed (the discussion page wasn't created, so was redlinked in today's log). As a purely procedural move, I'm listing it properly, and contacting the editor who attempted to nominate it. It should be recognised that the nominator (User:Electricpussycat) has made very few edits outside of this article and this attempted nomination, so there may be issues there. I'd leave the discussion open a day or so to see if they come and provide a deletion rationale, but I totally understand if someone wants to close it early as a speedy keep. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep, without prejudice to renomination. Not sure of notability, because news results will be full of results about creationism, but this appears to be a niche literary publisher, and I do see a fair number of results about books they have published.  A notability argument would require some attention to the actual content of the sources which are easily found, and without a statement from the nominator review is going to be fairly superficial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What "easily found" sources? If they're out there and I missed them, then certainly, I'll want to change my !vote.  But the article doesn't cite any that could establish notability and when I did my own searches, I couldn't find any.  Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  I have looked through the various Google searches and based on that, I don't believe the sources exist.  Msnicki (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am not finding any reliable sources that give substantial coverage of the company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth It appears that the publisher is trying to get this deleted to stem criticism of his company. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. All we care about here is notability, which turns solely on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources.  Msnicki (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As infamous as this company has become, there just aren't any reliable sources that would show how it's notable. The only sources I've found have been articles briefly mentioning the company as well as of course a few blogs and websites talking about the controversy over authors not getting their royalties, none of which could be used as a reliable source. There's just nothing out there and since Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soapbox for viewpoints, there's no other choice but to vote to delete.09:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete no sign of reliable sources here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (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.