Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eborn 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 no consensus to delete this article, or more accurately, no interest in discussing it. It's been relisted a third time, but per WP:RELIST this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, and a lack of participation is not exceptional in AfD debates nowadays. Relisting multiple times is not a substitute for a no-consensus close. This discussion had low participation and few policy-grounded arguments were expressed, so there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. NAC— S Marshall T/C 07:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)'''

Eborn Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I can find casual mentions of this store/publishing business, but I don't see any significant discussion of it that would show notability. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  →TSU tp* 10:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion If all (non-self) published authors are notable (as was held at one time, haven't checked recently), then surely all the relevant publishing businesses are as well. Think about it this way, we allow these publishers to determine what is and isn't a notable author (by using them as our gold standard of author notability), so clearly we hold that they have greater authority than the authors themselves. If authority is generally correlated with notability, then publishing houses are more notable than published authors, who are notable, hence publishing houses must be notable enough for our purposes. Long-winded, but I just wanted to be absolutely clear about the reasoning. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you saying keep? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 19 July 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.