Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSS Publishing Company

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. MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Publishing Company[edit]

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

OK I will try to be brief as I put at the PROD. This company is responsible for publishing a lot of books for which there are or so-called "Neelix redirects" WP:G6 concession. Those I have been taking individually to RfD, CSD or keeping just because a book has a title does not make that book encylopaeidic and certainly if we have no content beyond redirecting it to its publishing company it makes no sense to have it. However, separately I do not believe this company is notable. The article reads like a WP:PROMO when for example the first thing in the lede is its full address. It really is just not a very notable company, I think. There are thousands – millions @ndash; of small companies (I have worked for a few) all doing perfectly good work but are not is notable by Wikipedia standards, and I think this is one of them. The fact they are a publisher inevitably means they will be slightly easier to kinda self-reference (the references are not literally self-references but are just mentions that this book is published by this company) than your local plumber who may or may not be a company but that still doesn't make the company notable. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches have found nothing particularly convincing and thus, included with the current article, there's nothing convincing at all for a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes up that would make this pass WP:ORG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 28 May 2016 (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.