Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus books (publisher)

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 Eluchil404 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus books (publisher)[edit]

I'd just like to register a heads up that this article seems to have been marked for deletion by someone engaged in a personal feud.

I don't know what the history of it is, or why I have been targetted, but Literato's only other contribution to Wikipedia was to place a puzzling message on my talk page threatening me with stalking and physical violence. NZ forever 01:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Keep - still needs more editing to bring it into a WikiP style article. But I now believe there is enough to warrant inclusion. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Delete - No assertation of notability. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow editors time to find and insert references. I think tagging the article with {{references}} might have been more charitable than listing it as AfD. Several Ghits, mostly from author blogs but at least one from publicly-funded arts NGO in new Zealand. Given that the publisher obviously exists, and had produced several books in the last few years, I'd be surprised if it couldn't meet notability criteria for organisations. But the editors who want to keep it do need to find and cite those references. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now revised. A much better article now that 1finalmercymission has fixed it. Sufficient notability. DGG 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Weak Delete One journal and nine books do not make a notable publisher. (Nor does a publishing house usually become notable in two years--two decades is more like it.) Probably there is more to be said, so say it. How "many" of its authors are firmly established? DGG 02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, allow editors time to fix this. The website lists more publications than the page does currently. My feeling is that it probably is notable by New Zealand standards - the move for deletion was malicious and didn't cite notability. Seems a shame to delete it, but someone needs to put a bit more effort into the page.NZ forever 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:52, 13 June 2007 (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.