Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Books 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

World of Books Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Commercial - lacks notability.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 03:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Company has been covered by two sources (both in the article), and won a "business of the year" award from its local community. Two sources (though both are "in depth", as required by WP:CORP) and a local award is obviously borderline notable, but seems like just barely enough to justify a stub article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CORP. I think the local article fails under WP:CORPDEPTH: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." And that national article fails under the same criteria, for me, based on: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage..." though it's a long article, as you say, it's pretty verbose as it discusses trivial matter with bloated sentences. If they could find some better references I might agree with you, but based on these two, I don't - shame, as I often buy books from them through Amazon and they are usually very good, but this article doesn't stand up to Wiki standards IMO.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 05:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article was created from a single-purpose account.  I patrolled it as a new page on 10 June and proposed it for deletion.  The article's creator removed the PROD banner but has added no further information in the two months since.  The article fails to adequately demonstrate the subject's notability.  Wikipedia is not a business directory.  Dolphin  ( t ) 07:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would prefer to delete but the telegraph article is solid. Appears nothing else of substance, will switch with a good rationale from other editors. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Telegraph is indeed a reliable source and covers the company quite nicely. But the video seems to to be puffery. Phearson (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Weak keep wp:notability is borderline. As an apparent non-profit, article has probably not been spun too badly by commercial interest. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (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.