Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog horn publishing

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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog horn publishing

Dog horn publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete contested prod for nn company apparently written by WP:COI editor Carlossuarez46 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am also nominating:
• Polluto (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), the up-coming magazine from the aforementioned publisher.

Carlossuarez46 23:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. I was unable to find any evidence of notability for either the publisher or the magazine, the sources provided by the creator were mostly from the publisher itself, and in my opinion did not adequately demonstrate notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• They are listed on www.creativematch.co.uk/viewlisting.cfm/47892, Amazon and www.ufindus.com/publishing_and_journalism. Christopherpaul 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be preferrable to merge the articles together? There may be more justification for one on R. L. Royle and Dog Horn in general, than three on her, her publishing company and her magazine? The main R. L. Royle article has now been significantly updated. I've sat here for the past couple of hours getting more sources etc for the piece and I do genuinely believe it should remain. There are shorter, smaller articles with people who have less of a following and are less interesting. Christopherpaul 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE BOTH The publishing company is a "vanity press" outfit, created by the author to publish her book, as the Yorkshire Evening Press source on this article makes clear. THe editor of this article has written three articles about the company (which is not listed at Companies House and the only sources given are trade directories); the magazine (which is not yet published and therefore can't possibly be notable) and the author (who according to the Yorkshire Post article is a 23-year-old ex model who has written a book and published it herself). All three subjects have become intertwined in each article and if there were a case for notability then these articles could be merged. Yet there is no such evidence. As a self-published novel by a previously unknown author the book would have failed to have got into bookshops and couldn't have sold; as a magazine they will be unable to get distribution into newsagents - and one of the articles at one point last night suggested the magazine would actually be published online making it a not-yet-published website rather than magazine. I wish them well, but they are yet notable for an encyclopaedic article. B1atv 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as lacking independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom, as violating WP:N, WP:RS and WP:SPAM, all by a SPA. Sorry. Bearian 00:08, 13 September 2007 (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.