Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowbooks

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. WjBscribe 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowbooks

Snowbooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable publishing company per WP:ORG. Apparent corporate vanity.RJASE1 ^Talk 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
• Comment consider also nominating Noah Cicero as this author has a few books, no awards, and a only a single source. It appears to be related to Snowbooks's creators efforts at self-promotion. That, and he's an editor of the 'zine that interviewed him, so we can scratch that link as a reliable source. Rklawton 15:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Despite all its achievements, it's a small publisher where not much can be said about it from a truly neutral and dispassionate point of view. No opinion on Rklawton's other recommendation: I glanced at the article, and it's borderline. YechielMan 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep small can be notable if it does notable things, and that seems documented.DGG 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What documentation do you see that the rest of us don't? Small can indeed be notable. We'd just like some actual proof of that, please. Keep per DGG; those look like spiffy sources to me.  RGTraynor  14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I just added two good links, one for the republication, and one for the award. I found them on Google. I also removed the existing inoperative link for the republication. DGG 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Their list sounds interesting. However, I have NPOV reservations, it reads like an advert. Rhinoracer 07:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that would be considered an WP:ILIKEIT. ffm ✎talk 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment According to the essay you cited, "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." In other words, it's better to avoid "the belittling redirect tag WP:ILIKEIT" if there is another way of expressing your point. -Fagles 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No offense taken. However, I meant their list sounded "interesting" because of the Milne book & stuff on their site. I'm not married to the article, though. Rhinoracer 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The notability is extremely marginal with only 2 refs. And the article was created by a User called "snowbooks" which violates the strong convention that you don't begin articles about yourself. NBeale 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Important publisher for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Does not meet WP:N. -- Jreferee 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep NPOV issues can be dealt with, but this seems to have sufficient verifiable notability to seemingly merit an article. Weak keep only because the sourcing is still anemic. — Scientizzle 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The awards — if they turn out to be true — and the A. A. Milne publication would satisfy the notability guidelines. However, I have no objection if the article is deleted simply based on the conflict of interest charge. --Aarktica 12:28, 26 April 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.