Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacksmith Books

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 as a publishing company who is not notable (yet...so deleting without prejudice to recreation if notability can be clearly established with refs). AKRadecki 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksmith Books

The article fails to establish any significant notability for the subject. Furthermore, the article was created by an author who's first novel was just published by this company, leading to some serious concerns about COI. Doc Tropics 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Some investigation suggests that this publisher is at least somewhat successful, and one of their books has recently been filmed [1][2]. They seem to have a good reputation as an up-and-coming publisher in Hong Kong. A couple of their other books seem to be somewhat successful also. I don't know if having notable products is normally considered to make a company notable, but I think it probably should. JulesH 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Up and coming..." is actually a good description. While this company might merit an article one day, I don't think they're there yet. Doc Tropics 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will concede without question that the WP:Notability from the release of a feature film also applies to the author of the book upon which it is based, but not to the publisher of the book as well! Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the primary criterion being used in this discussion, and note the section on Recommendations for products and services. —68.239.79.82 04:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks multiple independent reliable sources so is effectively unverifiable original research. This needs to be fixed before we can even begin to consider whether this is notable enough to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. Examining the web site, they seem to have published only 9 authors, with 10 books total. It's possible that "Whispers and Moans" is separately notable as a book or film or both, but I doubt if anything else is. As publishers go, this is a total beginner. They need PR, and they might be a worthy cause, but that's not our purpose. I'm not going looking for sources because at this stage I don't think I will find any. DGG 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is one of four articles currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich, all created on the same day by Pulrich (talk · contribs), one of the 9 authors published by them ... please see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich that combines two of them. —68.239.79.82 04:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn publisher, fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I work at the captioned company, and though we didn't post the original article, I have edited it in an attempt to introduce some notability. Happy to hear comments, and deletion is fine if it doesn't come up to scratch. Thanks. Saiyingpun 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article had a few well-placed citations, I would be willing to vote keep (hinta, hinta). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2007 (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.