Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Publications

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. I considered closing this as no consensus as there are reasonable arguments for deletion and keeping. However with the article having some additional coverage since the AFD was opened and the weight of numbers being in favour of keeping am closing as a weak rough consensus for keeping. The individual journals have already been redirected and while only some contributors discuss them there is a consensus that they should not have separate articles. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Publications[edit]

Indigo Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, only contains promotional material Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Publications is the publisher of several online journals that all have Wikipedia articles, which have similar or worse problems that this one. If Indigo Publications is deleted, the individual journals should be deleted as well. They are:

All articles were created by either Special:Contributions/Winkind or Special:Contributions/Axiome2~enwiki. All articles besides Maghreb Confidential and Africa Mining Intelligence were edited by User:SteveStrummer, who added the official website and/or the official logo to the articles. SteveStrummer opposed my WP:PROD for all articles, necessitating this AfD. I've asked SteveStrummer to confirm he is okay with redirecting the individual publications pages to Indigo Publications while this process is open: User_talk:SteveStrummer#Proposed deletion of Indigo Publications. -Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: From the discussion below, it appears some editors are not familiar with the relevant policies. I nominated this article for deletion because it is not notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability and the organization and company specific notability guideline. As for this AfD discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. Note: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. And: valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Finally, editors that favor keeping the article are encouraged to improve the article right now to show notability. If there are more verifiable RS for this article, they should be added to the article now, not just listed below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL POINT: If Indigo itself can't find much notable press about itself in english, there likely isn't much out there. In French appears a bit better, but I don't think there is anything there that Mojoworker missed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the New York Times terming one of their publications as the "authoritative French newsletter La Lettre du Continent"... Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that significant coverage? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This news organization gets a full chapter of discussion in a scholarly book, already cited in the article.[1] The current wording of the article is a bit promotional in places, but that can be fixed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text is obviously promotional. But that isn't the issue for this AfD. Indigo is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Being the case study for one chapter of a scholarly book is not enough to be notable. See the source search links above. Virtually nothing comes up. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to see something else. I cannot find discussion about the subject in anything but the aforementioned book, and it does appear to be a case study by someone who might be personally familiar with two of the company heads (see very top of p. 141). The various newsletters also do not appear to be individually notable and should at the very least redirect here. - Location (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep That the company got a full chapter in a book seems pretty notable, and the book itself is carried in over 1K libraries as per WorldCat. However, that is only one RS, and could be considered a fluke. At least one more is needed. I don't understand the conclusion that the author of the book is personally familiar with two of the company heads, since that page seems to only say that they had dinner together. It's pretty common for folks writing books to spend time with their subjects. Did I miss something more dastardly? I'll look separately at the individual journals, after reviewing criteria for notability. LaMona (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newspapers and media groups are notoriously difficult to source by Wikipedia standards, but some things are self-evident. Indigo is a global publisher for over 35 years and maintains an influential presence in its fields. The book is a scholarly study, and devotes an entire chapter to Indigo. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRV says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." (emphasis added) There is one independent source right now. That's not even "sources," much less "significant attention." If Indigo has an influential presence, then you need to show evidence of that, not assert it. Also, thank you for supporting redirection of the individual journals right now. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite significant attention, a full chapter of the book: and the book is a high-quality resource for the subject of business information services. Even if other sources are not readily obtainable, there is no need to demand more for the mere purpose of notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WHYN: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." And from Notability for companies: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked at the articles for the individual journals. This is a group of newsletters that are under one "roof": African Intelligence [2], which is an Indigo publication. They are all very brief, and with a superfluous link to the other journals.The individual titles all link to sub-pages of a single web page for African Intelligence. That would argue for treating them as a single publication with sub-sections, and having a re-direct from individual titles. However, that would require there to be an article on the "mother" journal, Africa Intelligence, and there isn't one. Also, I saw only one article with a citation, and didn't find references. Do these articles need to go through AfD individually? If not, I'll !vote Delete on the individual articles listed above, and if someone wants to create an article for African Intelligence as a whole, then we will see if that rises to notability standards. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. But if this article is deleted, then I would follow up by proposing the individual articles for bulk AfD. The most prominent of the individual journals is Intelligence Online from what I've seen. African Intelligence seems go be a mother journal for the other 5 Indigo Publications titles. But I would not recommend it for creation, simply because it has five publications under it. They are all non-notable on their own, I don't think anyone would argue that. Also, you should delete your previous comment or merge them together so that people can easily tell they are from the same editor. Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "mother" would be Indigo Publications, not African Intelligence. All the journals themselves are unsuited for standalone articles, and I noted so in my edit summaries; however, they are viable redirects to the company. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HumanIPO is not a WP:Reliable source, that is a press release. And in any case, the fact that a company makes a profit does not make the company notable. FYI, the Bloomberg Business listing does not make the company notable either. Some editors need to read WP:DISCUSSAFD - Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Love your snarky response, so I'll respond in kind. If HumanIPO is not a WP:Reliable source, you should inform the editors of The Signpost and ask why they used them as a source for Cape Town's 2015 Wikimania bid. And you'd better take HumanIPO's use as a reference in the Uber (company) article to WP:RSN ASAP. You claim it's a press release, but it appears to have been written by one of HumanIPO's journalists... And the significance of the HumanIPO article, is that it includes more than financial data. I've added some referenced information into the article under discussioon about Indigo's digital strategy. As for the individual articles, I agree with LaMona that they should be aggregated into this article – Mnnlaxer has already redirected them. Lastly, perhaps some editors need to read WP:CIVIL when they realize that consensus is running against them. Mojoworker (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the love. Right back at you. I will take HumanIPO to the RSN. Here's their independent mentions on Google News Archive search. And did you notice there aren't any "stories" from later than January? And that all stories on the home page are by the same author?
"Digital strategy" in non-PR language means changing a hard copy newsletter to email. As for consensus, I can live with either result of this discussion, but you don't understand the term-of-art "consensus": Wikipedia:Consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted my own revert to leave your new text, Mojoworker. Sorry. I do encourage people to improve the article. I happen to disagree that the new text is an improvement, but so be it for now. I'm fine discussing it here and on WP:RSN --Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started a talk page discussion about using the specific HumanIPO article as a source as well as the text added itself: Talk:Indigo Publications. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The HumanIPO article may have some interesting information, but it's not a strong addition to the page. That said, the English WP article is already stronger than the French article, which is tagged as lacking sufficient sources. I still see this article as being on the fence between keep and delete, and lean toward keep only because of the book chapter. LaMona (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the book chapter, by itself, shows "significant coverage" of Indigo? See WP:SIGCOV. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since they've been around since 1981, not all relevant coverage is going to be online. I don't have time to do that sort of research at the moment. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sidebar - in the interest of keeping the !votes close together, please place new entries above this line.
There are 97 results at Google Scholar for "Indigo Publications". If the individual publications are aggregated into this article, as LaMona and I are suggesting, then there are a large number of additional sources, not all of which may constitute "significant coverage", but some certainly do. Some are just library holdings of the publications, and a number of results list them as media partners for trade shows – not sure how much significance that adds, but some... Anyway, for Africa Mining Intelligence as an example (from the first few pages of 296,000 Google results:
  • GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (October 2011). Minerals Yearbook, 2009, V. 3, Area Reports, International, Africa and the Middle East. Government Printing Office. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4113-2975-1.
  • http://www.minesandmoney.com/mauritius/africa-mining-intelligence-2/#
  • http://www.energynet.co.uk/partner/africa-mining-intelligence
  • IBP USA Staff; USA International Business Publications (7 February 2007). South Africa Mining Industry Business Opportunities Handbook. Int'l Business Publications. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-4330-4559-2. {{cite book}}: |author2= has generic name (help)
  • http://www.gisinminingafrica.co.za/MediaPartner.aspx
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/6860540
  • http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1450933/africa_mining_intelligence
Additionally, there are an 107 results at Google Scholar].
For The Indian Ocean Newsletter it looks like even more significant coverage, being cited in publications by University Press of Florida, Oxford University Press, and The Daily Telegraph:
Additionally, there are 132 results at Google Scholar].
Those are just from the first few pages of Google results for the first two publications, I didn't check the other five... I've certainly seen many Wikipedia articles with far, far, far less coverage than this. Mojoworker (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've clicked all the bulleted links. That's not coverage. All of those save one are citations. The one is a Indigo reporter being quoted. That's not coverage either. Could you share one of those far, far less coverage articles that is notable? Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy. Mojoworker, I admire the work you did to come up with the above, but I'm afraid it misses two points. 1) How do you propose to improve the article with these citations? "One of Indigo's publications, Africa Mining Intelligence was cited in the Minerals Yearbook 2009." That doesn't cut it. See WP:Permastub 2) The article is not notable as a company because it has not received "significant coverage" as a company. Having its online newsletters cited by other publications does not make either the publication or the company notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Here is the specific notability guideline for the web Wikipedia:Notability (web). Here is the criteria for web content:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

See also WP:FAILN. Lastly, I clicked all the Africa Mining Intelligence links you provided and didn't think any of them qualified as independent, significant coverage from a RS. I can go through each one, but it would help if you singled out 5 or less of your best candidates for good sources for us to talk about. Discussing Indigo Publications itself would be best and don't bother with links that show Indigo or one of the newsletters was cited somewhere. The source should be independent and discuss the material in the body of the text, not in a citation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources cannot be dismissed so readily. Wikipedia:Notability (media) notes that "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals" that "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" or "are frequently cited by other reliable sources". It's a benefit to the encyclopedia to provide information about such publications. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if it was the right category, but it's not. That is for traditional media organizations reaching a wide and general audience. For Indigo, the correct guideline is what I linked to above, WP:WEB. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For Indigo, the correct guideline is (despite what you linked to above), certainly not WP:WEB. Only recently did they become all digital – previously they did traditional printing and distribution of their publications. And despite now being all digital, why do you assume that they are merely a website? On the contrary, they now publish via PDF sent over email - merely a difference in distribution. And a subscription includes access to archives of their back catalog of all traditionally published articles since 1992. Arxiloxos is exactly correct. Mnnlaxer, did you miss the part that says "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 4. are frequently cited by other reliable sources"? The examples I provided are illustrative of that form of notability. Point 5, "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" may be applicable as well. Look, it appears nothing we say is going to convince you. I'm tired of your tendentious attitude and I have little interest in debating you further, when we all could be doing something more constructive, like building an encyclopedia. I'm happy to put in some effort, when/if the article is kept, to incorporate the individual publications into the "mother" article (if that's the decision), but I've said what I need to say and I'll leave it up to the closing admin. I think I'm done here. Mojoworker (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, as I noted above, the standard for Indigo is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). My point was Indigo does not qualify for Wikipedia:Notability (media), which says, "The scope of this guideline covers all forms of 'traditional media' - including newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Websites are determined by the WP:WEB guideline." But even if it was a media organization, Indigo still does not meet that standard: "A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." 4 and 5 don't apply, because Indigo is not a newspaper, magazine or journal. It produces newsletters. It is a niche market, and it is important in its niche, that much is clear. But is it notable enough for Wikipedia? No one here has shown that it is. Speaking of building an encyclopedia, you could have been improving the article instead of arguing here. Your only attempt so far is very weak. See Talk:Indigo_Publications. The time to improve it is now, before this discussion is closed. I promise you I would withdraw my nomination if the article can be improved enough to show notability. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had some time this morning to add some things to the article, but it's by no means finished... Part of the issue – and it's obvious once I gave it some thought – is that, being a french company, most of the references will be in french. A number of them to be found at google.fr – here's one search for example. Perhaps more here at google.fr books Mojoworker (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Well, I haven't dived into your new sources, and I won't be able to assess the French ones very well, but even if you've solved the RS issue, you've made the WP:PROMOTION issue worse. We all agree the individual publications aren't notable by themselves, so now you've added a bunch of non-notable material to the article. It shouldn't contain anything more than a list of the publications. I'll discuss in more specifics later on the article talk page, but I still want an editor to close this discussion, because no-one has shown that Indigo Publications is a notable subject for an article on Wikipedia. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the references I've presented are consistent with WP:Notability (periodicals) in that the publications in question are "the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper". It appears all these publications have ISSN codes, I've provided some library catalogs where they are included, and they all were, at one time published in print form (and according to a ref I added to the article from Le Monde, two of them still are available in printed form). Specifically applicable to the Google Scholar results I previously listed, notability criterion #4 states: "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works". As for my changes, at the beginning of this section, I advocated the preference of LaMona and I to aggregate the individual publications into this article, said I would be "happy to put in some effort, when/if the article is kept, to incorporate the individual publications" into the article under discussion. I had planned to wait until the article was kept (or had no consensus to delete), but since you've been adamant that the "time to improve it is now, before this discussion is closed", I went ahead and restored some of the material from the individual articles that you redirected to this article. I pared them down, but if you think there is too much WP:PROMOTION in those subsections, go ahead and edit them. I happen to agree with you that the original articles seemed promotional, but that has no relevance to the notability of the subject. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Notability guideline for Indigo Publications is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Primary criteria: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." So please argue how Indigo meets that criteria. Or just go with the General notability guideline. I'm afraid I'm at fault for bringing in the guideline on web content as it applies to the newsletters. But you and Arxiloxos have brought in the essays on media and periodicals. Neither apply here. The newsletters are subscription based, so they don't generally circulate in libraries or other reference sources. But I thought everyone has already agreed the newsletters themselves are not notable. That's the reason their articles were blanked and redirected to Indigo. So why are we still discussing anything other than the company or general guidelines? Finally, I do agree promotion and notable are separate issues. Notability comes first. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everyone "has already agreed the newsletters themselves are not notable". I believe only you and User:Location have. LaMona, SteveStrummer, and I have advocated merging them to this article – or some other "mother" article (such as Publications of Indigo Publications or Indigo Publications publications – very awkward titles), since African Intelligence isn't really suitable as the "mother" article. And yes, Wikipedia:Notability (media) and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) are essays. but note that (from the media essay): "This notability essay for media topics is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a topic should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."
In the link to the Stanford Library I provided above, it shows they have the back-catalog (when it was physically printed) of The Indian Ocean newsletter Issues no. 1-885, 1981-1999 in the Hoover Library stacks and has Issues no. 886(2001)-no. 965(2001), no. 967(2001)-no. 1264(2009) in off-campus storage. The search for others is left as an exercise for the reader. But the Google Scholar citations are what's compelling... From the periodicals essay: "A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF." So, yes, I do believe the individual publications are notable. But I also believe they are better presented all together. Would you be more amenable to renaming the article to Indigo Publications List? I could maybe see that as a possibility, but need to think about it further. Mojoworker (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I think essays are fine to use, but in this case, when you have a perfectly applicable guideline, then that takes precedence. It seems desperate to use the periodicals notability standard for the publications in order for the company to inherit that notability. Perhaps ditching the company in favor of an article more clearly based on the newsletters themselves could have a better justification of notability. But you are ignoring the first sentence of the Criteria section in the essay. "If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions, as evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria, it is likely to be notable." (emphasis in original) You are using criteria #4: "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works." You don't just get to use Google Scholar to show there are citations. You have to use RS that have significant commentary about the periodical. This all comes back to showing significant coverage in RS of either the company or the periodicals. It just doesn't exist. You've tried hard, but it isn't there. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mojoworker, I still think you are operating in good faith, but to quote the note to one of the periodical criteria, while ignoring the requirement that RS have to write significant commentary on the periodical meeting the criteria is tendentious. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is greatly improved. Two things: there need to be references for the individual journals -- obviously the Indigo site is a source, but it would be good to find others. So I would leave it with a "More sources needed" banner. The other thing is that I find it odd that there is no ISSN (or no ISSNs) listed. Perhaps such an identifier isn't necessary for online publication, but the earlier print publication might have had one. Some identifier would help connect users to indexes, libraries, etc. Note that at least one Indigo publication shows in WorldCat with a respectable number of libraries listing it: [3]. LaMona (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Indigo site is a primary source for the newsletters, so it can only be used for basic information and cannot show notability. If Indigo is deemed notable, then I'll put the promotion and unsourced templates on the article. Try clicking through to an actual library to get your hands (or computer hard drive) on a copy of any newsletter. It won't be easy and it certainly won't be free to the general public. It might be possible to get some electronic text with access to a subscription-based database, but that's probably not what the essay means by circulated in libraries. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mnnlaxer I'm not sure what your point is about libraries. I don't think anyone suggested that the journals are free to the general public. The link I found (and I didn't remember a mention of libraries in the article) is for a LEXIS/NEXIS subscription, and I see no problem with that. Library digital subscriptions are regularly limited to that specific library's patrons. I'm seeing library holdings, esp. academic library holdings, as a sign that some researchers ascribe value to these publications. It's not a slam dunk, just another clue to notability.LaMona (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, the ISSNs are as follow
Don't have time to look up the rest right now, snd I'm not exactly sure how best to present them, but go ahead and add them if you want (or I'll do it later). Mojoworker (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm going off topic too frequently here. The only thing that counts is significant RS coverage/commentary on the company/newsletters. I'm going to request closure of this AfD so we can move on, whatever the decision is. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigo_Publications&oldid=1068990279"