Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Book Group

Manhattan Book Group

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Manhattan Book Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

"Contributor Content" blogs fail WP:RELY, and thus fail ncorp. She was ^afairy 06:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: USA Today is clearly a reliable source so this alone shows it qualifies as being notable. Additionally, the company has been responsible for publishing several notable books such as "Shifting", "All This Healing is Killing me", "Living and Touring with Alice Cooper", Balaclava, Surviving Hospice and "Leaving Bacon Behind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridicu (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  just because a company has helped published notable books does not automatically make the company notable. Contributor Content pieces are not reliable. She was ^afairy 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Beyond what Shewasafairy said, these books have questionable notability per WP:NBOOK. Please note that AB Newswire is specifically a PR platform, so it is not considered a reliable source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I checked all of the titles mentioned above and they are all on Amazon and notable. I agree that ABNewswire isn't notable or reliable but the books themselves, published by Manhattan Book Group, are notable. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, both the USAToday and LAMag sources are very clearly labeled as contributor blog posts. Ceoworld.biz is also a CRO/PR platform. I've removed those. Significa liberdade did a solid job removing many other PR sources, including some known blackhat SEO sources. Searches only show the same junk and more SEO placement. That leaves us with a single directory entry provided by the company. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - The sources from the previous version of the page don't meet WP:NCORP. All of the sources were either passing mentions, primary sources, or sources such as blogs (even though the USA Today source is considered WP:GREL with regards to actual content, that particular source was labeled as a blog). Beyond that, I couldn't really find anything significant in reliable secondary sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not labeled as a "blog". It's labeled as "Contributor Content." There's a difference as far as I can tell. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per the analysis of the sources above. Promotional contributor content is useless for establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep USA Today is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. The Manhattan Book Group USA Today article, which was originally included as a reference for this page and has since been removed, is marked "contributor content," not blog. The contributor in this case, Molly Peck, must have been vetted by USA Today to become a contributor. And I'd also assume that her articles are vetted by USA Today prior to publishing. "Editors agree that USA Today is generally reliable. As the largest newspaper in the U.S., editors note that the newspaper has a very good editing system and its centrism." Nowhere does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specify anything about "contributor content" from USA Today being unreliable. There's no distinction between "contributor content" and other articles on USA Today as per Wikipedia.--2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Jon Stojan, not Molly Peck* 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I have fixed this. Please see WP:RS/P again.

  It's a Delete from me. TLA^tlak 03:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  The contributor content "unreliability" seems to be your opinion. Not convincing. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Borderline Keep for me due to the Mariel Hemingway connection. Found this article. I know we don’t generally use YouTube as a source, but a video of Mariel endorsing Manhattan Book Group does exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CE80:E280:2517:F719:A387:A11 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete company not notable and no source for notability found. Powerviki (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)