Deletion of The UKA Press (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'll be honest, the link-spammed "references" don't help. There might be a couple of useful ones in there somewhere but how could you tell? That there are that many references but still  or  concerns is a concern in and of itself. Unfortunately, those that I looked at didn't even mention the company at all. A reference for a book published by the company (especially one that doesn't actually |verify that the company published it) doesn't do much for meeting the requirement for "significant coverage". I'm not going to get into any of the business above but if someone wanted to go through the references and highlight the 2 or 3 they think actually provide significant coverage of the subject, I think that would help. For now (until my continued searches turn up something of worth) I'm inclined to delete per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:V||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I'm sympathetic to the cause of small presses. They are underdogs in a world run by Amazon destroying the fabric of book culture (long story). It really pains me to see small presses deleted from Wikipedia, one more freaking thing right? Amazon ahoy. The problem is though once something reaches AfD, it has to meet the guidelines of . That means, multiple reliable sources ''about'' the company itself. This is IMO a very high bar for certain types of companies: magazines, small publishing imprints and press, small companies. We have seen it over and over on AfD. At this point there is not much that can be done if there are no reliable sources. I recommend whenever you can try to get some press exposure for the press itself, a journalistic story or two ''about'' the press, not just the products the press produces. At some point I would like to see rules that allow for products to influence the notability of the producer but right now it doesn't seem to be the case (see last sentence of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: There does seem to be substantial independent coverage of various books and writers, but that only counts towards notability for articles on those articles about those books and writers; it doesn't make this publisher notable because |notability is not inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)