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. Michig (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big House Publishing[edit]

Big House Publishing (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)

The article has been deleted twice before due to a lack of notability and apparent advertising/promotion. Like a phoenix, it keeps rising from the ashes, and like a good arsonist, Flat Out (talk · contribs) was there with with a can of gasoline and a book of matches (its just in this case I happened to be faster on the trigger :) Anyway, no apparent notability, no credible claim of significance, and it still reads in the ad/promo vein, so here it is, and whatever happens, happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article whose previous submissions by the same editor have been through two G11 speedy-deletion cycles, so it is probably appropriate that it has come to AfD for a decision. The given references demonstrate that the firm has issued press releases. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing, Google returns only the usual listings on social media and directories. I am seeing nothing to demonstrate that the firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt All the sources are just self-published or primary, press releases, etc. Article is promotional. Notability is irrelevant, because we delete promotion and WP:NOTRS everywhere we find it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - My searches found nothing even in the slightest good and third-party and it's not surprising it's all PR for a recently founded company. For a future article, I strongly suggest WP:AFC but only when it's come closer to notability and better sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - all of the above and hat tip to TomStar81. Flat Out (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt for all the reasons already rehearsed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 22 July 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.