Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMB Publishing (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 redirect to Kogan Page Publishers. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMB Publishing[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. This was AfD before, and closed as no consensus, through we had 4 delete votes to 1 keep and 1 weak keep. The article hasn't improved since. While I am open to discussion on whether perhaps all book publishers are notable, thee is no exception for them currently at NCOMPANY or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I'll ping User:DGG who made the most convincing argument for keeping this last time, as well as all other participants of the last AfD: User:Oo7565 , User:Schuym1, User:SteveLoughran , User:ChildofMidnight, User:LeaveSleaves. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The former references were industry listing sites whose pages are no longer available, presumably due to GMB Publishing Ltd. ceasing operation (see the Companies House reference now added). While this firm went about its business publishing reports (though the "Doing Business With Jordan" book cited in the previous AfD appears to be published by Kogan Page), I am seeing nothing to indicate that it achieved encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The firm was a split from Kogan Page Publishers, sand the simplest thing to do is to include some information there. I could probably find information on its formation and bankruptcy in appropriate UK trade journals, but that's difficult (tho not impossible) to do from the US and I don't have time to make a project out of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kogan Page. I don't see anything useful worth keeping in the current article, as it does not cite any independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 14 November 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.