Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MILK 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

MILK Books

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This feels promotional to me (though not enough to go full G11), and I'm not seeing anything that justifies the article's inclusion under WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE check also brought up nothing of note. Kirbanzo (talk - contribs) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies,  and New Zealand.  Kirbanzo  (talk - contribs) 04:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom, advertisement of a non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't even much non independent coverage on them as far as I can tell, let alone independent and in-depth. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional article and certainly nothing in the way of notability, not even the NZ Herald article does it any. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete> Promo article and subject fails WP:NCORP. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Too promotional and advertising!Fabiobengario (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by who did exactly 10 edits and waited the required number of days to be auto-confirmed before creating this one article. Clearly a paid promotional article.—  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  21:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say delete from reading WP:NCORP policy you mentioned, and @Cait3mo's account does feel promotional, but I researched a bit deeper and I think there is valuable knowledge in the 'History' section of their company (the part about 'M.I.L.K.' series). Maybe that could be turned into a new article about M.I.L.K.?
 * Also it seems they are mentioned by NCORPs including Cosmopolitan, New York Magazine, and Brides.com, which @Cait3mo did not mention in their creation of the page. I found a similar company 'Mixbook' while researching 'MILK Books' and found they have a Wikipedia page which hasn't been flagged for deletion, but is on a similar plane to this article - because of that I say keep, but so long as there's some revisions to make the article feel less promotional and be more valuable. 3ed3nB (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC) — 3ed3nB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I note that is a new user who only turns up because of this deletion discussion. If they feel there should be an article on the original reason for the Company from their history, they can start a new article on that, this discussion about the photo book company that doesn't get WP:INHERITORG because of the art project it was started from. Next, none of the references added meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as they aren't about the company itself but standard discussion about the photo albums. I also advise the user to read WP:OTHERSTUFF regarding Mixbooks.—  NZFC  (talk) (cont)  00:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * is more than likely a sock of . DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment from reading through the comments and postings on the internet I think maybe the article should be refocussed to being about Blackwell and Ruth publishers. Milk Books are their publication and it seems to be globally significant in the field of wedding and personal online photo albums. Whether that would translate into articles in main line newspapers or other publications, I am uncertain, but the coverage is certainly extensive in the field Milk Books are in. Is there a lot of self promotion, yes, but that would be expected. What I do find interesting is that for a publisher in New Zealand, there seems to be wide coverage globally. On the surface it appears there should be enough to meet WP:GNG. And just side comment and not something I intend to discuss further - because someone has been editing Wiki for a short time is not a valid reason for dismissing their comments about an article. NealeWellington (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references meet our criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:37, 1 May 2022 (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.