Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwordPen Publishers
I couldn't find anything via a search to show that this publisher is ultimately notable. None of their works seem to have gained any sort of coverage, nor has the company itself. As far as the article claims and sourcing goes, the sourcing is almost all primary in one format or another. None of the claims are the type that would give notability as the publisher does not |inherit notability from being associated with notable persons and the other claims are fairly misleading. Just about http://www.bookexpoamerica.com/Exhibitor-Info/Want-to-Exhibit/#page=Contact-Us any publisher can get a booth at BEA - the only true requirements center around their ability to pay and whether or not they sign up in time. The BEA booklet mention appears to be just a booth listing and an advert - both of which are things that any conference worth their salt would offer to people paying to exhibit. Even if there was an article on the publisher (which does not appear to be the case) it would still be considered a primary source since articles of that nature are meant to promote features of the conference. The claim of recognition from other publishers doesn't really do anything since it's only sourced to the SwordPen website and looks to be the same as a book blurb, which cannot show notability since it's the type of offhand statement issued in order to promote something and is also not easily verified. The mention in Baby & Kids is a reprint of a press release, so that's primary as well. The only non-primary sources are e-commerce sites (which do not belong in an article at all), a legal filing (which could be argued as primary), and a trademark listing (which could also be argued as primary). If not for the link to Barnett, I'd say that this could actually be speedied as A7
— User:Tokyogirl79, 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTINHERITED (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)