Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny Owl Publishing Ltd


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Tiny Owl Publishing Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a new publishing house about which I can find no indications of notability in reliable independent sources; this article is regrettably WP:TOOSOON. The thing that is actually notable is the book The Little Black Fish which the publisher has reprinted; the "accomplishments" claimed in the article were in fact awards given to the book well before the company even existed. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Nothing to suggest even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The refs don't establish notability, they're trivial or primary apart from a couple of small book reviews which are routine fair. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, this publisher appears to be concentrating on English versions of childrens books from Iranian authors/illustrators which is admirable, plus its name and logo is cute:) but unfortunately a search doesn't bring up enough notable sources, the article at present relies on mainly primary sources, plus one successful book (that already has an article), so delete as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2015 (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.