Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daedalus 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   keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Daedalus Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This started out as a highly commercial page, with addresses and greenlinks to the company website in the body of the piece. This was stubbed out the same day of creation back in January 2007 to a piece that very closely resembles the current form. While the Washington Post piece showing absolutely counts as 1 substantial, independently published source towards GNG, a quick Google snoop isn't showing me much else. The Baltimore Examiner piece listed has gone 404; that may or may not constitute a second source towards GNG. I don't think setting a high notability bar on a page such as this started with clear commercial intent is unreasonable. I'd be willing to stand down if a couple more independently published and substantial sources can be mustered, but as of now, this doesn't appear to pass muster for sources. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Added sources.) Multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Links to the sources are in the talk page, commercial databases. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Washington Post article is from a reliable source and has lengthy coverage. Publisher's Weekly is also a credible source. Enough to establish notability. Churn and change (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article stands now, it clearly has sufficient RS to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability has been established - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 3 October 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.