Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash University Publishing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Monash University. Since there is no much content, merge can't be done, redirect is the best option. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Publishing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a user who is banned now and Monashpub who clearly is associated with the organisation, non notable and more like advertisement. Ray-Rays 23:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect I don't see any banned users, just an indef block based on a violation of username policy. That said, there is nothing here to justify a separate article for the publishing arm, it doesn't appear to be independently notable. Redirect without deletion to Monash University. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, given the large number of articles that exist in Category:University book publishers, there seems to be a precedent for permitting university publisher articles. The publisher has 32 books listed on Amazon USA, which means that it is by no means a fringe publishing house. The fact that it is currently a stub that is not very well referenced doesn't mean that it cannot be expanded, nor that it could easily be referenced. Give it a chance to be expanded I say. --Bob Re-born (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:GNG--I find no useful WP:RS sources at all. Right now, the article is just a tiny bit about the University and an external link to the publisher's site, so a redirect to Monash_University or Monash_University#External_links, where it has a link, should suffice. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university. The university is certainly notable and important, but its press does not seem to be independently notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.