Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authorspress

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. czar 21:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authorspress (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)

I do not see that the press is a significant publisher of any of the listed authors that are clearly notable, nor are the journals yet notable. .WP is not a publishers catalog. The references seem to be tributes from authors it does publish, and the usual PR. The present article in WP is part of a promotional campaign, and that would really be sufficient reason for deletion. Probably I should not have removed the G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see evidence that it exists, but no real evidence that it's a noteworthy publishing house. Most of the refs I've checked appear to be by people affiliated with the company, not neutral sources. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I speedied this once, and would have done so again if another admin hadn't declined. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The same editor who created this article has created several related articles, which currently are all at AfD (Phenomenal Literature, VerbalArt, and Vivekanand Jha). --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searches unable to find reliable sources to demonstrate it's a notable publishing company. Elaenia (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment reworked on the drawbacks shown by the above mentioned editors. Added notability as much this article deserves. Removed promotional and advertising elements. Prinshukr (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment all they have done is moved their listing of authors into the text of the article. For almost none of them are they the major publisher, so it remains a catalog. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The last changes to the article mentioned by Sandstein were made 5 days ago, but clearly this didn't motivate anybody to modify their "delete" !vote and DGG gives a god explanation for that. Given the unanimous discussion above, with the article creator being the lone dissenter, I don't think this should have been relisted/can be closed now. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added more than fifteen third party citations from newspapers and journals after the last "delete" to strengthen this article.Prinshukr (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps you should also note that since then, both DGG and I have indicated that this is not indicating any notability of the company. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After reworking on the article, adding citations for notability and removing promotional and advertising elements i do believe article should be there. we can make this article stronger and stronger by adding further reviews and news on this press as and when comes out. For example i have added one more citations today from the journal (http://www.museindia.com/newsview.asp?id=134).Prinshukr (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2016 (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.