Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROH Press
While uniqueness can speak to notability ''if'' that claim is properly cited to |reliable sources which are ''independent'' of the company's own self-promotion, a company does not get ''exempted'' from our sourcing requirements just because it ''claims'' to be unique — every single thing and every single person that exists at all can ''always'' claim to be unique in some way, so an unsourced article cannot be kept just because somebody ''asserts'' uniqueness. And notability is |not inherited, so the company doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because of the particular titles or authors it happens to publish either. The company gets a Wikipedia article if, and only if, it can be |reliably sourced as the ''subject'' of enough ''substantive'' coverage in ''media'' to pass  and . But nothing shown here satisfies that requirement — having its name ''mentioned'' in reviews of its books does not constitute coverage ''about'' the company, and nothing that ''does'' constitute coverage about the company is being shown at all.And furthermore, Sidzee, the fact that you use the first person ''we'' to talk about the company, meaning that you're either an employee or an owner of it, means that you have a |conflict of interest — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform, and our rules explicitly state that if you're directly affiliated with the topic then you can't start an article about it yourself. We exist as a venue for |neutral third party content, not as a platform for companies to republish their own marketing materials
— User:Bearcat, 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:RS||WP:CORP||WP:GNG||WP:COI||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)