Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowswing Books (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowswing Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previous AfD was a no-consensus keep. Several years later, this small publishing company does not appear to be notable. The article is unreferenced at present, and I have been unable to locate anything which would attest to notability. There is some limited coverage in reliable sources, but most of it is trivial - "Directory of UK & Irish book publishers" etc. None of this reaches the WP:GNG threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thparkth (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I really don't see significant coverage here. If this hadn't been taken to AFD in the past, it would qualify for A7 speedy deletion — someone tagged it for that, and I deleted it a few minutes ago, only to realise that it had previously been at AFD, and I don't think it a good idea to delete under A7 if an article's survived AFD. That being said, I don't think that it should survive AFD this time. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable defunct micro-press. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was only ever a vanity press and it is long defunct. Its own website has been taken down and the proprietor (Sean Wright) has now decided to become a self-publishing musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delelte - needs to have considerable Reliable sources discussing to be worth keeping, Sadads (talk) 16:07, 2 February 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.