Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunbelt books


 * 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   keep. Keep and rename (without redirect) to Sunbelt Publications. Largely a SNOW result, with indirect references being made to notability via GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunbelt books

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable publishing house. No independent coverage to be found. Some of the books they have published have won some minor awards, but none sufficient to even raise the titles to notability according to WP:NB. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but cut down, clean up, and rename to Sunbelt Publications. The current version of the article is bloated and promotional in tone (and I note that a prior article about Sunbelt Publications was speedied in 2007 because of its advert content), but buried in the dross there appears to be a legitimately notable small publisher.  The article already contains a few legitmate sources, and a GNews search  shows a number of articles about the company (such as this ), and a large number of articles with substantial coverage of books they publish. If the promotional stuff can be deleted and the basic facts kept, then the encyclopedia will be better for keeping this information about what appears to be a reasonably prolific local publisher. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect As per the first reference in the article, Sunbelt is one of 9,000 "serious" independent publishers in the U.S.  Arxiloxos has it straight, this article is incorrectly named.  With the new name, a volunteer will have the opportunity to make dozens of Wikilinks.  As per the Google Scholar search for "Sunbelt Books", there may be publishers with that name in Moore, SC and Basking Ridge, NJ, thus the need to delete the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, why do you suggest deleting the redirect? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave evidence that there are two other publishers by that name, why complicate things if someone in the future has a use for "Sunbelt books"? Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, their titles are referenced numerous times here on WP. not much press coverage, of course. basically agree with Arxiloxox, including renaming and cutting down, esp list of awards and large bibliography (i believe such bibliographies should only be for books or authors who have articles). (mercurywoodrose)99.39.148.212 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, I'm inclined to keep it, as many of the books that they have published are online on Google Books and have their own pages here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact that Google Books lists some of their titles in a search does not establish notability, nor does the fact that there are articles on Wikipedia (a non-reliable source) have any bearing on notability.


 * Keep - The Union-Tribune article is substantial coverage about the company. Other material is behind pay walls but the summaries suggest that additional coverage exists to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect per above. Should be at the proper title. Seems to be minorly notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per above. Personally I would delete the entire sections on "bibliography" and "(non-notable) awards" but that is an issue for the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2012 (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.