Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratching Shed 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 delete. czar 05:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratching Shed Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does it become notable if it has connections to notable people? That seems to be the whole claim. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Article clearly needs a rewrite but I believe the subject is notable. This article in the Yorkshire post covers the subject in detail. NemesisAT (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder (says it in the lede) and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been changed (and perhaps its quality reduced) by an anonymous editor. It needs a rewrite, but I stand by my comment above that adequate sources are available that establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom. Notability is not inherited. Promotional and just a business listing. A "still" small publishing company. A google search brings up mainly directory listings. The Yorkshire Post article is mainly an interview. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 9 August 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.