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 redirect to Karen Hunter. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hunter 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)

no indication of notability outside of its parent company. Mostly primary sources given. noq (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently being updated with more sources - in addition, page for Karen Hunter is often cited in error instead of this page....we are working to resolve this — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLFers (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible redirect to Karen Hunter for now - Google News provided (continues in the first few pages) some news articles and a few press releases but nothing substantial for notability and most of them are also through Karen Hunter, who seems to have gained more attention than the company. They have published several books by famous people but that does not establish notability. I have no prejudice towards a future article when they are notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Then possibly make a redirect, while being sure that there is not excessive coverage of this in the article on her. I do not want to rule out an article, but it would have to be different from this. A list of [published works for a publisher has always been considered as promotional content; ww have so far never even accepted a list of notable published works, though we have accepted a list of particularly famous ones. A publisher provides a technical professional service--not a creative one like an author. I notice that not all the links are real: "no strings attached" ilinks to a disam p, which does not contain a listing for the book. "A Perfect Fit" is a 2005 film unrelated to this 2010 book, "Faith Under fire" is a television show unrelated to the book. The only book that would conceivably be mentioned in a proper article would be Mama Dearest, a NYT bestseller, DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 3 March 2013 (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.