Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ylva 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ylva Publishing[edit]

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

The concept is a lovely and strong idea, and I wish all the best to this publisher and its authors. Nevertheless, it appears to fail the WP:GNG, WP:CORDEPTH tests for inclusion as an article in the English language Wikipedia. I also note that there is no corresponding article on the German language Wikipedia. Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a German Wikipedia article, it wouldn't use the English title with "Publishing," surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant G11 advert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I respectfully disagree that the article is blatant advertising but I think this publisher is too new for an article and that there aren't many appropriate reliable sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here to assert notability, and the references are devoid of reliable secondary sources. Reference one is to a blog, reference two is a self reference, reference three is a self reference, reference four is meaningless as sponsoring some other entity doesn't make you famous. There's no claim to fame in the article other than existing and publishing 150 books, none of which are claimed to be significant. If there were enough such books, then maybe. But, there's nothing here. We are not a business directory. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2017 (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.