Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abramis Academic Press (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Abramis Academic Press
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an article about a non-notable publishing company which has had little or no coverage in reliable third-party sources. The article itself is completely unreferenced. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable organisation per WP:ORG. No coverage in reliable secondary sources. The last AfD a couple of months ago was closed as No Concensus due to a handful of !votes which seemingly did not consider the notability of the company to be an issue of relevance. However, there weren't any secondary sources available then, and there still aren't now (just check with the links above.) Unsurprisingly, in the intervening two months, the article has continued to sit there completely unreferenced, because adding references is impossible when no sources exist. There is no scope for an encyclopedic article on this topic so there is no way to improve the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete According to their own website they specialize "in the innovative on-demand publishing model" which means they are nothing else than a fancy copy-shop that also may do a bit of promotion on the side. They print whatever you send them for a fee. This doesn't pass WP:CORP. Travelbird (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. It does assert notability by claiming "it has steadily grown its catalogue and its profile", but without specifics and better yet reliable sources backing it up, it's essentially a meaningless statement. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.