Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duquesne 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Duquesne University Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable university printing press. No third party sources to show notability. No notable publications. Nothing beyond a run of the mill press that is typical of many universities. GrapedApe (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I could really see this one going either way. The Press has made a lot of contributions in the field of Medieval studies and phenomenological philosophy, but I'm not sure if it's any more notable than other university presses—so if it isn't precedent to create articles about university presses, then I see no reason why Duquesne ought to be the exception. — AlekJDS talk 04:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - While Wikipedia's coverage of publishers and publishing leaves much to be desired (as opposed to, say, topics relating to popular culture or breaking news), one does hope that individual company histories of publishers great and small will develop over time. This is a stub article requiring a great deal of work, but the publisher is long established and sufficiently prolific to merit encyclopedic coverage. Carrite 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Want to improve the coverage of publishers and printers? Cool, I second the motion. But not through this article. -- BenTels (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Duquesne University. -- BenTels (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Please view the press's catalog. This is a very active press publishing scholarly works in philosophy and literary studies. I question GrapedApe's authority to evaluate the notability of the press or its publications. Do we accept GrapedApe's POV? If so, why? Certainly the article needs work, but it's a stub inviting effort. In general, I believe that scholarly presses deserve coverage in WP. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from Ad hominem attacks against me. Discuss the article and the arguments, not the person.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite. Redirect/merge to Duquesne University can be discussed separately from this AfD, but there's enough to find notability (even if the article doesn't currently flesh it out very well).--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, a merge is an appropriate outcome from an AFD.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge I am not convinced about having the article deleted. The press hasn't published many famous books, but it seems to serve an academic niche, and a merge to the Duquesne article makes sense to me. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:37, 24 September 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.