Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lace (books)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Lace (books)

 * Article consists of one line (that seems to be very pov} and a link to a commercial website.DeleteTheRingess 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 17:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable imprint (and there are numerous imprint articles such as Target Books. If there's a copyvio concern, simply rewrite the line. 23skidoo 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - highly notable and popular - David Gerard 13:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, advertising. Evidence of importance not presented, will change vote if someone presents a verifiable source citation suggesting this is important in, say, the way Olympia Press or Grove Press was. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a current imprint, along the lines of, say Target Books. It doesn't have historical important, but neither does Target or many other current imprints. 23skidoo 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still a stub, but I removed the POV and ad-like copy. It's now a more straightforward stub. 23skidoo 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's (currently) a crappy stub but the line is notable. I have faith a one-handed typist will be able to expand on it eventually. Ifnord 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- as a subject it's probably valid, but this stub gives little or no workable content --Simon Cursitor 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - yep, though you wouldnt know it from the stub, Black Lace is definitely a notable UK imprint. They were rather groundbreaking, a decade or so ago, as a wing of a mainstream publisher bringing erotica imprints into mainstream bookshops. Here is an article explaining the background. Tearlach 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a stub, but it could be grown.  xaosflux  Talk / CVU [[Image:CVU2.5.PNG|16px]] 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as long as notability can be proved and is demonstrated in expanded article.  S t e a l t h F o x  18:02, 13 December 2005 (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.