Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manta Publications


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 13:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Manta Publications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability in the article as it stands. This is the personal publishing imprint of Dawn Navarro Ericson and Dominique Navarro – see, for example, the Details section of this Worldcat listing (notice anything about the author of the fulsome Goodreads review?). The COI here is very obvious. Though the page was clearly created for the sole and solitary purpose of publicising their work, a speedy deletion nomination as G11 was declined by, hence this discussion. Oh, and much of it is a copyvio from http://mantapublications.wordpress.com/about-manta-publications/, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't find anything to show that this publisher is notable enough to merit an entry. If by some chance (unlikely as it is) that Dominique Navarro survives deletion this could redirect there, but I'm not really optimistic about its survival. I do have to note that Goodreads does allow authors to review their own work as long as they identify themselves as the author in some form or fashion, which Navarro did. I'm not personally a fan of people doing that, but Goodreads does allow it per their guidelines. Now if she'd posted it under a different account (as author accounts should automatically tag the review as an author review from what I can tell), then it would be considered unethical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I never thought it was notable, but it indicated possible importance as publisher, and therefore did not fit into speedy criterion A7-- A7 is strictly limited to those which are obviously unsuitable, and do not need discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 31 July 2014 (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.