Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schiel & Denver Book 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schiel & Denver Book Publishers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at AfD in 2008. None of the references cited indicate notability as none of them contain in-depth coverage of this company. I can't locate any other reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, to meet our general notability guideline and our guideline for corporations. There were promotional issues behind the last creation and the creator of this article has not edited outside of it. Them From Space 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThemfromSpace, thanks for your review. This AAP publisher should meet notability standards (i.e. guideline for corporations) from verifiable involvement with United Nations Global Compact as well as from the other independent and verifiable sources listed. Although the main reference from the New York Center for Independent Publishing (NYCIP) which previously contained a detailed professional summary was lost since the NYCIP remerged into the General Society and no longer has summaries on any it's member publishers; Pan Macmillan's The Writers Handbook Book 2011 which is a major information source for writers (and readily available from most traditional bookstores) has an independently researched section on Schiel & Denver. Suggest to Keep or at most editing and making a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronauthor (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC) this is User:Aronauthor's first edit Them From Space 10:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nothing more than a vanity press. The article also suffers from WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:SPAM. Also, as an article previously deleted through AfD, it should have been speedy-deleted this time around. All of these crazy redirects should also be deleted [1] Qworty (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPAM as well as multiple other guidelines. Nakon 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe requires more editing, but not liking something is not sufficient grounds for removal WP:JDLI. Please tone down the grossly unfair commentary too. These "crazy redirects" are all valid search terms [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefentry1900 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything in the refs that indicates notability - one doesn't even mention the company. Merely being a 'vanity press' isn't a ground for deletion (there are articles on others), but being a vanity press without indication of notability is, as it is for any other press or furniture remover or petroleum corporation. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A word to New Accounts and editors of the article (not including Drmies...) I notice that a lot of accounts have edited this article. Indeed, with the exception of the established and regular editor Drmies, these accounts have only edited the article and possibly this discussion. This does happen, and in my experience at AfD it is often a sign of sockpuppetry. Please see WP:SOCK before creating new accounts to vote here, or using multiple accounts to give an impression of activity. This is not a head count - it is a discussion. I may be wrong, and all these eager little beavers may be just that, and not one large beaver trying to conceal its tracks. (Yes, I am cynical...) Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows a meagre 3 hits. [3]. one article claims this is the leading book publisher?!...if that was true it would get multiple stories in the country that publishes more books than any other. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.