Deletion of Morgan James Publishing

Comment: searching online does not show coverage by authoritative sources and I question |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree that this is a vanity press, but looking at it from the view of  it has a certain notability. Being on the list of "fast-growing independent publishers" in Publisher's Weekly two years in a row is the kind of thing that we look for in articles about companies. The other articles are about business moves, which are typical of corporations. I'm not greatly impressed by the "Best Seller Lists" since we know that those can be manipulated, especially in the specific lists like "Advice, etc. paperback" which is what these are. However, one reference says that their best best-seller sold 60K copies, which is probably a fair amount. How much credit the vanity press should get for this is a mystery to me, which is why I'm pretty much discounting that. I do think that the article should say "vanity press", and I will add that although I suspect it will get reverted. Having other eyes on it for the next while will be helpful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The only substantial coverage of the company I can find is in ''Publishing Weekly'' but as a specialist industry publication, I don't consider coverage in there to be sufficient to demonstrate notability per . I've searched in Factiva to see if there has been any coverage in more mainstream sources but haven't been able to find anything but http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5tBSNc9yxu4J:www.adweek.com/galleycat/morgan-james-rick-frishman-answer-their-critics/8670+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=ubuntu this but it's not possible to find what the original allegations were that lead to that piece
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)