Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prospero's Books (store)

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prospero's Books (store) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This sounds interesting and seems to be somewhat well known locally but my searches found no outstandingly good sources (searches here, here, here and here) and their best coverage may have been the 2007 book burning. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The book burning actually got a lot of coverage. Local radio coverage from last year [1], Local News coverage (not related to book burning) from this year [2]. It meets at least WP:CORPDEPTH for such a small company since. WP:AUD is the real decision here, it has had national/international coverage in addition to continued regional coverage, but the most substantional national coverage is for one event. WP:LOCAL is pretty convincing to make a keep for locally known places that have had at least one nationally known notable thing. It also pops up on tons of travel/tourist stuff for KC, which isn't an official criteria might make people wonder why it's listed so they might look it up here. I think that since it's written pretty neutrally it should probably be kept. If it was promotional I'd probably be biased against it.--Savonneux (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, shouldn't we be looking at WP:EVENT for this one, ie. " Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance.", so if the coverage of the bookburning is discounted will there be enough to warrant an article? The "local news item" above does talk of the bookburning (probably why they decided to cover this news item) and talks about an urban library which may be a slight variation on the Little Free Library that individuals, groups and businesses have been setting up all over the world; prospero also happens to have set one up, hardly notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Coolabahapple's comment. Nothing to show notability outside this one locally notable event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 21 September 2015 (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.