Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Moon Books
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Silver Moon Books
Assertion of notability is not backed up, or convincing. 'An international following' isn't necessarily a criteria of notability. I'm not sure what 'Sold on high streets' means but I doubt that this is an assertion of notability either. No references or citations. A similar article is bdsmbooks.com also proposed for (CSD) deletion. If an admin removes that DB without deleting, and the person who placed the DB tag doesn't switch to AfD, I'll list that one here as well. AvruchTalk 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. There are many ghits. The article is poorly written but it appears to be something of some significance. Its books are sold on Amazon.com. Undoubtedly, the article needs some serious cleanup but the subject itself seems to be notable. Billscottbob 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral: I don't know...It needs a lot of work, but with the above g-results, appears like it may be notable. - Rjd0060 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. the ghits above are deceiving since there are no quotes (only 500-odd hits with the three words in that order). But it is indeed a pioneering and well-known imprint, as is the successor bdsmbooks.com (which gives 6200 hits) I think if anyone's actually hoping to document the original e-book publishers in this field, both imprints need to be included. Steve Rapaport 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant guideline appears to be Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), and I can't see how this comes anywhere near satisfying it? The google hits seems misleading, all of the relevant hits seem to be companies selling their books, which does not seem to count as a secondary source; the other hits don't seem to refer to this company. I'll withhold voting for now, in case someone can provide some evidence of notability? Mdwh (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not seeing notability Mbisanz (talk) 15:24, 13 December 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.
