Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlink Publishing

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interlink Publishing

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

Interlink Publishing appears to fail the WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Though I did find a couple three sources about various books or book series they have published, I failed to find any significant coverage of the company itself in third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a book is coverage of those responsible for it, including the publisher. If they have had three book reviews of reasonable length, they satisfy GNG and possibly LISTN. James500 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have a detailed article, which clearly is about the company qua the company, in a book published by the American Library Association. A book that comes up almost immediately in GBooks and is actually cited in our article. James500 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already cited in our article satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though the information on the company’s profile is extremely low keyed that gives the impression of non-notability. However, when I look to Google Scholar I see evidence of a company that is publishing a number of author(s) works that are cited extensively which would lend itself to the publishing house to be notable under its “products and/or services” ShoesssS ^Talk 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG needs to be rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. James500 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 October 2014 (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.