Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hagiology Publishing (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   no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hagiology Publishing
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This subject does not seem to show a significant level of notability. The references used in the article only mention the organisation in passing, usually mentioning it merely as the publisher of Book X. In a previous nomination, this article was kept as it was believed that the subject had a "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics...". However, as was also pointed out in the previous nomination, the subject in question was merely incidental in the instances where there was a demonstrable effect. – PeeJay 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Perhaps worthy of a mention on the Southampton F.C. article, but certainly nothing more. GiantSnowman 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nothing seems to have changed from the first nomination. If this was a a record label co-operative, it would be a definite snowball keep, and can't see how a book publishers would be any less notable. - fchd (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular publisher is less notable. All references to it that I have found only mention it in passing. Other than having published some quite good books about a fairly narrow subject, this publisher has done nothing of note. – PeeJay 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments presented in the previous AfD. AfD hero (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see anything in this article that makes me want to dispute the previous AFD decision. 23skidoo (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm hearing this. Other than a statement of what the organisation does (publishing historical and statistical books about Southampton F.C.) and the etymology of its name, there is nothing in the article about the organisation itself. The rest is just a list of its publications, none of which are notable in themselves. – PeeJay 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I just think its a stupid and pointless article that can be mentioned within a few sentences on the Southamton article. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (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.