Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Hills 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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Hills Books[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7. It has a slim assertion of notability, and the press has been written up. I don't think this is an A7 but I don't think it meets notability standards either. Chick Bowen 04:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question... do we know that this publishing firm is more than one person? And inre WP:CORP, the guideline states "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"... and for what it is and where it is, it seems to qualify. I mean really... Duluth, after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability and certainly no evidence thereof. - Sgroupace (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tiny publisher which has apparently published only three books [1]; I don't think a brief mention on a local website can establish notability, and none of the other 35 google hits look like significant independent coverage. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed up the article, added proper links and references. The company has a major writer in its line-up, Bruce Henricksen, and its first book pays homage to Pulitzer Prize winner James Wright. This is a new company, so I tagged it as a stub -- over time, this can grow into a larger article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple references. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current references, other than the one I linked in the nomination, are reviews of books published by the press. Can anyone find discussions of the press itself, rather than books it's published? I think they would be more helpful in determining notability. Chick Bowen 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back For a small start-up press, reviews are an important way to secure notability within their industry. The vast majority of these publishers never get written up in major media, so getting attention via reviews is key to establishing their cred. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved, the article about the publishing firm just sneaks over the notability fence. It's not a biggie, that's for sure... but it has notability in its area which has been verified by reliable sources. Nuff said. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 4 October 2008 (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.