Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Baird Publishers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. plicit 23:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Baird Publishers[edit]

Duncan Baird Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is full of false information, but since it's about a real former company, I don't know if it qualifies for WP:G3. I'm nominating at minimum per WP:TNT but I can't really find notability of the company anyway, so I don't think it's actually notable. To run through several things here:

I have no idea where any of this information came from. Personally, after a recent LLM incident at ANI in which LLMs were generating false information and hoaxes, I would like to know from the article creator if this was written using an LLM.

But, either way, while trying to verify information in the article, I did not immediately find significant coverage establishing the company as notable on its own, and its acquisition and rebrand is covered already at Osprey Publishing. Even so, I think this needs to be TNT'd. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, obviously and clearly. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Per Nom. Charsaddian (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the extent of the detail set out in the article text but questioned above, I left a message on the article creator's Talk page asking if there are alternative sources which can support the text as written. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: One way to address the concerns above would be to stubify the article, removing everything after the introductory paragraph. However, the notability issue remains: I am not finding evidence that Duncan Baird Publishers / Nourish attained notability, and I think that would stand even if they could be shown to be associated with the various awarded and/or controversial books discussed above. (A redirect to Osprey_Publishing#History could be an option, though I would first recommend the stubification, to alleviate future confusion if someone looked at the contradictory pre-redirect text.) AllyD (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2023 (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.