Deletion of Norilana Books

Comment: per , and kindly leave the sock drawer closed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Yes, COI is not the main issue for deletion, but what about ? In the section about Special note: advertising and promotion, there are three items for solving advert in the following order of precedence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Reads like an advert (), no references and I agree with the chance of |conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:COI)

Comment: um, listen to experts, or this entry will be waved around as further evidence of Wikipedia hostility to experts. (See WT:AFD discussion on how AFD is one of Wikipedia's biggest public relations problems, to an extent where it's blatantly inviting a Foundation smackdown similar to the one that created .) I went to the LJ entry and asked them not to pull this crap, and I ''still'' think "keep" based on the evidence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: This article does not read like an advertisement, and it seems to be a notable publisher to me. It is a proven fact that Wikipedia is very picky about notability, and I wonder if this strict policy should be changed. If an article is well-written, has reliable sources, is about something legitimate, and does not read like an advertisment, I myself see no reason to delete it. This article fits all those requirements. After all,  says that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is "no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover."  says that "notibility is not popularity," so, in other words, it doesn't matter if not many people have heard of this publisher; it is still notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: to Barberio and David re: experts. First, Wikipedia is not hostile to experts. But, unlike traditional encyclopedias, |editorial decisions on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources that are external to Wikipedia. For this reason the argument of an expert is given no more weight than that of any other editor here. I have no interest in checking whether
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Being a legitimate business isn't one of the notability criteria under .  There are few to no independent sources of info about this business.  At this time it is impossible to write a neutral article that is more than a very short stub.  Therefore, this should be deleted. If you want a Wikipedia article, start a PR campaign to generate coverage in reliable sources.  Once the sources exist you can come back and '''request''' the article by posting a comment on a relevant talk page somewhere.  |Avoid writing about yourself or your business
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:COI)