Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re.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. ✗plicit 23:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re.press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Poetry, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's not difficult to find published reviews of their books. There's also some coverage of them (via an interview with their founder, but independently published) at [1]. Whether that and the existing bloggy sources amounts to GNG notability is another question. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not seeing enough for GNG Andre🚐 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like the coverage is limited to blogs and trade press; fails WP:NORG (and WP:GNG for that matter if editors decided to apply that guideline). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 6 primary sources, 1 questionable source. Evidently does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NORG. Madeleine (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2024 (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.