Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornstalk Publishing


 * 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 merge to Angus & Robertson. czar 16:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Cornstalk Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Publishing company that fails NCORP and has no additional sources on the internet. TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  19:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree, fails WP:NPOV, specifially WP:CORP. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:CORP, article (that is barely a stub) hasn't been touched since its creation ~8 years ago. A quick google search showed no avenues for article's development. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable company from 100 years ago that no longer exists, so if RSs exist they presumably should be findable now. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It was not a 'company' for a start - it was an imprint, and a substantial player in australian literature and publishing history - as an imprint of the publisher Angus and Robertson. Not made easy by the fact that Austlit identifies the 1990s imprint, and Trove has substantial listing of publications that relate to 1924-1929. The least would be to salt/merge/into history of Angus and Robertson, at the very least. However I would say delete is furphy, it is a stand alone item in oz literary/publishing history JarrahTree 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - re-reading the Angus and Robertson article, it is a very poor article, and I would see no benefit in combining anything in this article with it. The significance of the imprint, and its value to Australian literature (as seen by additional edits since the commencement of this afd far outweighs any misreading of the imprint and its context) JarrahTree 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Angus and Robertson The topic is of some significance, however, I don't think a standalone article can be justified through WP:CORP. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article about this Angus and Robertson company/imprint has been researched and developed from a single-referenced three-sentence stub into a start-class article. The authors whose works were published by Cornstalk, both in the 1920s and 1980s-1990s are significant in the history of Australian children's and general literature.--Oronsay (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - this imprint/company has an interesting trajectory, being also responsible I believe for being the first imprint to publish the Anne of Green Gables series in Australia. It warrants a separate article and more work on its history and ethos. Sterry2607 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Angus and Robertson LibStar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as above as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Angus and Robertson. The imprint seems to have published notable authors, but most of the sources cited mention the company only incidentally and lack the significant coverage required for a stand-alone article. Meticulo (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge into Angus and Robertson appears to be the most sensible option seeing as none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. NYC Guru (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2023 (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.