Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Authors Limited

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Authors Limited

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

The article appears to fail WP:ORG. Isabel Atherton seems fairly synonymous with the company and there might be an argument to create a BLP based on the Google News and book mention matches for her. Agency organizations do not get automatic notability conferred by the fact that they may, at times, represent notable people. Matches in Google News and Google Books are tangential, normally in passing reference whilst talking about an author. Consequently there are a lack of independent sources available to demonstrate significant impact or impact on the historic record. Raising for discussion rather than PROD due to multiple authors involved and prior speedy already removed. Fæ (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of notability. The only reference given is to the company's own web site, and the external links are all either likewise not independent, or make only passing reference to the company, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Association with notable writers would count in its favour, but that doesn't sufficiently compensate for the near-nonexistent coverage in third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep -- It may be useful as a list of authors represetned by this agency. Since the proprietor does not have an article, we cannot easily redirect to her. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of third party sources does it for me. Also, I'm not sure that many of the people represented are either authors or notable (check the wikilinks) - if they were literary heavyweights it might be different. Chris (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2010 (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.