Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srishti Publishers


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Srishti Publishers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails as per WP:NCORP. Notability would not be inherited by mentioning subjects with Wikipedia articles. Dial911 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Weak Keep: If a publisher publishes multiple best-selling works, then that's really not inherited notability, but a function of the core activity of that business, and ORGSIG applies. Visible online in-depth coverage is woeful (are there RS Indian publishing trade press sources?), but it's at minimum NOTEWORTHY as the most prolific publisher of low-end books which is credited as having been primarily responsible for launching the Indian mass-market fiction boom. (yes, they're both interviews, but Hachette is independent of Srishti, and questions asked in an interview in an RS can be treated as factual). Since its inclusion is a necessary part of the modern history of book publishing in India, it should at most be encapsulated and redirected there, but if that's to be done it probably requires a more comprehensive/balanced expansion of that target. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The new and improved CORP policy has way too high standards. This publishing house is nowhere near it. Wikipedia needs reliable sources for any company to have its standalone article. Mere publishing bestselling books doesn’t grant it an entry to the encyclopedia. Those bestselling books shall have an article here not the publishing house. Having an article just because it produced some bestselling books is a perfect example of inherited notability. Dial911 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:57, 22 October 2018 (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.