Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books LLC

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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books LLC

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

All the sources here are highly dubious and seem to be blacklisted sites on Wikipedia that have some how gotten in. While well known at WP:RSN it doesnt seem to have any notability except for a few blogs going WTF... fails WP:CORP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was an article about this company in Metro recently. I checked that we already had an article when I read it as I've long noticed this company's books showing up in Google searches and the matter is of obvious interest to Wikipedia editors who may like to know what is being done with their work. Here's another good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added another source. I don't agree with their business practices either, but that doesn't make them non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added {{WikiProject Companies|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Tennessee|class=start|importance=low}} to the article talk page, as I think every article being rescued should have the appropriate project templates. I need to look at the inline citations and explore elsewhere before I say anything about the merits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems well-sourced enough for me. SnottyWong ^confer 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems well sourced but examine closely its all blogs and random websites. The Washington Post source is a humorous essay not a news article. The only WP:RS is the Metro article just added.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Tiroler Tageszeitung: blogs or random websites? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is a national German newspaper of very wide international circulation. The inline citation here substantiates the business practices of Books LLC, at least in German. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we deleted every unsavory article, there would be little left. The sources therein appear to be notable, but my German is very weak so I can't attest to them. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently enough sources, and worthy for inclusion because editors and the public should be informed about their business practices. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: unjustified afd nomination and total waste of time. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep. Based on the above keeps, and the refs. Someone please come along and close this, and spare our fellow editors further wasted time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is notable. TFD (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (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.