Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwordPen 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.  Sandstein  19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SwordPen Publishers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, no major reliable references. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as not convincing of any notability yet. SwisterTwister   talk  01:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find anything via a search to show that this publisher is ultimately notable. None of their works seem to have gained any sort of coverage, nor has the company itself. As far as the article claims and sourcing goes, the sourcing is almost all primary in one format or another. None of the claims are the type that would give notability as the publisher does not inherit notability from being associated with notable persons and the other claims are fairly misleading. Just about any publisher can get a booth at BEA - the only true requirements center around their ability to pay and whether or not they sign up in time. The BEA booklet mention appears to be just a booth listing and an advert - both of which are things that any conference worth their salt would offer to people paying to exhibit. Even if there was an article on the publisher (which does not appear to be the case) it would still be considered a primary source since articles of that nature are meant to promote features of the conference. The claim of recognition from other publishers doesn't really do anything since it's only sourced to the SwordPen website and looks to be the same as a book blurb, which cannot show notability since it's the type of offhand statement issued in order to promote something and is also not easily verified. The mention in Baby & Kids is a reprint of a press release, so that's primary as well. The only non-primary sources are e-commerce sites (which do not belong in an article at all), a legal filing (which could be argued as primary), and a trademark listing (which could also be argued as primary). If not for the link to Barnett, I'd say that this could actually be speedied as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:ORG. Have been unable to find any reliable sources that assist for notability. The books listed on its website do not appear to be notable either as I have been unable to find any useable reviews for them either; they have been authored by two people, this publisher appears to be a marketing/promotional vehicle for their products.  Wiki is not. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not deleteHello very-helpful mods! This is the OP of the SwordPen Publishers page. Firstly, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, SwordPen is indeed a company ([])) and is a notable children's book publishing company as well. To Tokyogirl: Being in the BEA is not as trivial as it sounds; the BEA checks out each booth to confirm they are indeed a legitimate publisher. In fact, SwordPen is part of Ingram distributors as well. Furthermore, a legal filing is public knowledge, and is as unbiased and third-party a document as you can get.

I have also added the sources from The Asia Foundation that SP donated to, as well as the lawsuit between SP and Henry Holt, which is backed by DWT, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

I am more than happy to provide any and all evidence needed to create a SwordPen page. If there is anything I can do, please don't hesitate to ask me. I know this company, but I am not being paid to post on Wikipedia. It is a notable and up-and-coming publishing company. Thank you all. Please forgive my less-than-perfect Wiki-etiquette, as I am learning the ropes :).


 * 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.