Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews University 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrews University Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails the notability guideline for organizations and companies as well as the general notability guideline TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Keep - Article about press that published quite a number of books already, an article like this can only grow. Also, although independent references might be hard to find about the publisher itself, we can find a number of sources on its products, as well as mentions of its employees. Mentioned towards end of article, (behind pay wall): Republication of product in Christianity Today:  There are probably more, this is just from a quick search of Google News Archives. WikiManOne (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - University Press has over a thousand hits on Google Scholar. WikiManOne (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is the publishing arm of Andrews University which has been in existence for more than 100 years. It publishes the PhD theses for the University and other works which number in the hundreds per year. This is just a Stub. Allenroyboy (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No independent secondary sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that I gave you a number of links in my vote above suggesting the opposite.WikiManOne (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG. Lionelt (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Academic publisher not trying to sell anything. This is a stub-level treatment of significant topic worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WikiManOne. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WikiManOne, minus crystalball argument that "It can only grow." Seems notable at present. Edison (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2010 (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.