Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permuted Press
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 delete. MBisanz talk 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permuted Press[edit]
- Permuted Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notability established, no reliable sources, basically article is just an ad for someone self-publishing books. No results in Google News for "Permuted Press" -- Google web results also show no mainstream coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable company. Matt (Talk) 03:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional spam for a non-notable company. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a legitimate company and some of their works have been put on the short list for the Stoker Awards. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm having trouble putting the proper notation into the text, but the preliminary Stoker ballot with the two nominations can be found at http://ozhorrorscope.blogspot.com/2009/01/news-preliminary-ballot-for-bram-stoker.html -NapalmChicken
- I'm sure that it is legitimate; what's in question is whether it passes the inclusion criteria for companies, which are outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). In a nutshell, "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." If you can point to any such coverage about the publishing house that would be very helpful. --Amalthea 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This publishing company has published many books from notable authors, including Kim Paffenroth and David Wong. Here is one reliable source about the company. There's also an article from absolutewrite.com that interviews the founder of this publishing company. Third, there's a review about one of the publishing company's books and the company from a professor at Louisiana State University. These sources are enough to barely push this company past WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (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.