Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Books Ltd (2nd nomination)


 * 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. v/r - TP 16:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

World of Books Ltd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Commercial in nature. Notability is questionable, and lacks significance. Phearson (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - received significant coverage in a national UK newspaper (the Daily Telegraph). Also, per Warden, the last debate closed too recently. --S Larctia (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep We already had an AFD for this two days ago. Warden (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. This article was created from a single-purpose account, suggesting a conflict of interest and a reason for the article being commercial in nature.  Dolphin  ( t ) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was created for commercial reasons doesn't suggest anything about the notability of the subject. The article is written with a neutral point of view. --S Larctia (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete coverage appears to relate to a single round of positive coverage probably generated by a PR person. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Close Phearson wanted to delete it in the last AFD which ended two days before he opened this one. Not getting your way is not a valid reason to start another AFD.   D r e a m Focus  00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete can't find significant coverage to indicate this company meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. As for the quick re-nom, I don't think that it was ideal, however it still does not change the situation with regard to notability. Mt  king  (edits)  08:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete while this did qualify for a speedy keep as nominating an article two days after an closed AFD without a deletion review) is highly discouraged, and considered disruptive. I decided to look closely at the sources before deciding. The first source is most likely a press release, as there was no author named in the article and researching further the Trade Month articles come from the UK Trade & Investment website, which is a government website that helps UK buinesses expand and grow. So that source is not independent of the subject. The second and third sources are clear press releases from press release websites, not independent neither. The fourth release can be considered "independent" from the subject but it's a local newspaper award, which isn't a claim of notability.


 * As a result having one local source is discouraged by the wording of WP:CORP, and the other three sources violate our policy on self-published sources, and considering those (and a few more press releases) were the only sources I found on google, the company should be deleted. Secret account 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notable book company, I purchased several books from them myself via amazon market place, which I then used to improve Wikipedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you bought serveral books from the company doesn't mean it's notable, there are thousands of book companies about the same size as this in Amazon (maybe without the press releases but still). Secret account 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm told by the previous closing administrator on his talk page, that he won't just speedy close this. Those who say keep please copy over your past rational so they'll count it in this one.  With coverage like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/uk-trade-investment/6385885/Trade-Month-World-of-Books-business-is-booming-but-it-needs-to-start-making-a-profit.html I don't see how anyone can doubt its notability.   D r e a m Focus  19:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just rebutted that it's not The Telegram article, it's a UK Trade & Investment press release that was redistributed by The Telegram, defiantly not an independent source. Secret account 02:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, its independent source, since they are independent of the book company. "Trade Month: UK Trade & Investment In association with UK Trade & Investment, the Telegraph presents a series looking at the opportunities for UK exporters."    D r e a m Focus  04:57, 10 September 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.