Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackenworth 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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Quackenworth Publishing
Case of WP:CORP, I think - less than 300 Ghits and nothing on Amazon, does not appear to be notable Jammo (SM247) 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yanksox 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete and Comment I read their books when I was a kid, and saw copies in just about every clinic I went to (and as a sick little boy I went to my fair share). However, it's been awhile, and times change... Danny Lilithborne 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It fails a straight WP:CORP, but I can't help thinking that if the notability criteria for a book is that it should be widely available and have an ISBN, then the publishers of widely available books with ISBNs are notable (Amazon link).  Mr Stephen 11:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Can't see that any of their books have wikipedia articles. Only Two books only listed on Amazon. Website shows that most of their sales are likely to be direct and so not a wide readership. Seems to fail WP:CORP - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not establish notability, and is self-promoting as the author is User:Quackenworth.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:38, 9 June 2006 (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.