Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball Press


 * 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   merge to Club Penguin. ( X! ·  talk )  · @972  · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowball Press

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Book publishers are generally pretty notable but I'm having problems finding any references to this one outside of self published resources such as blogs or wikis. Club Penguin book list linked from the article shows either Grosset & Dunlap or Ladybird as the publisher. RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, barely passes WP:V. Urge resisted. Abductive (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Club Penguin. A Google News search turns up no related results, and a regular Google search turns up no secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. It looks like there may not be much or any useful information to merge, but a redirect would be appropriate in any case. Tim  meh  15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Club Penguin. Club penguin is a large enough phenomenon (lots of articles about it and a large following) that this information is worth keeping, but it doesn't deserve its own article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Club Penguin. Looking above, it looks like it's just a phrase for indicating that's it's a CP book. YOWUZA  Talk 2 me! 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because:
 * 1) [Wikia] Wikia is compatible with the  Creative commons 3.0 Share - Alike license. Wikia is where I got the base for this article.
 * 2) I have spent a lot of time on this article, the Snowball Press and i would be very annoyed if it was deleted - i am human too.
 * 3) Creative commons 2.0 Share-Alike License Licensing used by Wikia - Link - . On wikia's page, it clearly states that their terms are covered by CC 3.0 -by-SA 'Except where otherwise specified, the text on Wikia sites is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA). The Snowball Press article had not been specified by Wikia and is therefore compatible with Wikipedia.
 * 4) Search for snowball press on google and 1,610,000 results come up so it is a large enough c
 * Comment:
 * That isn't why it's up here.
 * If that logic was always followed, then Wikipedia would be filled with junk about "fictional character who wear fingerless gloves"
 * Same as No. 1.
 * See WP:V
 * YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 13:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a compatible license doesn't make it a reliable source. As a wiki, Wikia is by definition a self-publish source which cant be used as a reference.--RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because it is a real publisher, i believe and has its own stock.MiloSoft (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you provide a reference to that?--RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2009 (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.