Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humpty Dumpty Publishing


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this rather new publishing company. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Seems mostly to be vanity publishing, or at the least just a small publisher starting in business. They haven't published a book yet so as a result completely not notable. Seems that the individual names involved may be approaching notability themselves based on some of the awards, but that doesn't mean this company is notable. Add the fact that the article is an advertisement that looks more like a press release (though that's obviously fixable) and seems like a copyvio (though I can't find a source.) Canterbury Tail   talk  12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator and User:Canterbury Tail.  They haven't actually published a book yet and all I've found is social media, self-generated material, and a good deal of confusion with the eponymous American childrens' magazine.  No reliable sources found; notability is neither asserted nor present.  Ubelowme U  Me  14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE Just because something is new doesn't mean it doesn't exist? i recently brought a copy of Topsy Turvy Tales by Humpty Dumpty Publishing from Amazon, surely a company must start from somewhere? - i even looked for them on here to see if they had any more titles available — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamFannyadams (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of everything that exists. Moreover, it is an encyclopaedia of things that can be covered verifiably, neutrally, and without making stuff up onesself.  It is not a free advertising billboard for advertising onesself or one's up-and-coming business.  Writing an article about one's own business on Wikipedia isn't an "original marketing stunt".  It's a sad, tired, and woefully unoriginal bad idea that thousands have had before.  Claiming that the business is "renowned for original marking stunts" and sourcing it to an autobiography that doesn't even say that isn't an original marketing stunt, either.  People have long since done the whole bogus sourcing to autobiographies, press releases, and sources that simply don't support the content at all, thing, as is the case for this article, too.  Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also note that anyone can list a book on Amazon, you just need to pay them to act as a distributor for you, it doesn't indicate that you or your book is notable. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:51, 6 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.