Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny-Farthing Press

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penny-Farthing Press[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to Victorian (comics). Mooonswimmer 15:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is well established. Furthermore, the proposed redirect makes no sense whatsoever. Splunction (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 04:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fine. jengod (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per noms suggestion, merge material into Victorian (comics).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to follow the nominator's suggestion of redirecting to Victorian (comics), as the publisher's seemingly only notable work. However, after having actually looked into that comic, I don't think that comic is notable itself, and should probably be sent to AFD itself. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep There's a Google presence for them and perhaps more sources could be added. Its stub status doesn't mean it is not notable. JRed176 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally not a valid argument for keeping on its own, its the existence of WP:SIGCOV that appears in reliable sources that demonstrates notability, and none of the results that come up on google for this company have that. Rorshacma (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect due to failing GNG. Note that the proposed redirect target is at AfD and doesn't appear notable either, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can locate that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Sourcing fails the criteria and there are insufficient indications of significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society or entertainment. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 17 January 2023 (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.