Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snare 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snare Books

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a small independent publishing house, not properly referenced as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published website technically verifies that it exists -- the notability test hinges on the degree to which it has or hasn't been the subject of media coverage about it to establish its significance. But the ten footnotes here are almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. the cofounder's own website) or WordPress and Blogspot blogs which aren't support for notability at all. Of the just two footnotes that actually come from real media, one is a university student newspaper rather than a commercial daily -- and even that one isn't about this company, but just glancingly mentions its existence a single time in an article about its founder writing a poetry book. So there's only one footnote here that's actually both reliable and about the company, but one source is not enough all by itself -- and even on a search for better sourcing, all I can find is more glancing namechecks of its existence in sources that aren't about it. And for added bonus the company's defunct, so there's no prospect of improved sourcing emerging in the future. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very nice little self-promotion piece, which included two three short biography coatracks for associated parties (now removed). Tiny presses like this are rarely notable. Someone with more literary chops might be able to say if the The Robert Kroetsch Award for Innovative Poetry list of winners could be broken out into its own article. --- Possibly (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting as well that Possibly's trim job (which I agree with, and had been sorely tempted to do myself before even bringing it to AFD...but I decided to be lazy) also eliminated half of the footnotes I enumerated above, since they were sitting on that biographical content instead of anything about the actual company. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:PROMO piece. They can save it for their Wordpress website. KidAd • SPEAK 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources to be enough for WP:GNG. Grailcombs (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (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.