Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starhaven (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   delete. Secret account 07:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Starhaven (Press)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable publishing company, article has no sources and gives no indication of notability - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No apparent notability, does not meet WP:CORP. The COI editor who created the article apparently has no clue what constitutes a reliable reference. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is clearly a longstanding small publisher with a decent diverse pedigree of well-received books. I've added what clearer refs I can find, but these are about the individual books themselves rather than providng detailed discussion about the publisher as such. AllyD (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the books it publishes are notable by virtue of reliable-source coverage, notability is not inherited, therefore the notability of the books doesn't say anything about the notability of the company, in the sense of how Wikipedia defines notability. If coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (not other Wikipedia articles, blogs, press releases, business directory listings, etc.) can be found, then the article could be kept, but I am not seeing such coverage as required by WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2013 (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.