Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headpress


 * 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   delete. Tone 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Headpress

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced since 2009. Searching for sources has turned up only one passing mention in a non-affiliated source. Without reliable sources, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Yunshui (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Article now contains references, does comply with WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Searching for sources will turn up quite a number of references to Headpress in non-affiliated sources, including recent book review, movie magazine database the horror-mood the generalist. Headpress is a long running independent book publisher, established in 1990 and still operating. User:WorldHeadpress 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of these are reliable sources:
 * This is a blog, and doesn't mention Headpress except as the publisher of the book - see WP:USERG and WP:NOTINHERITED.
 * This is just a list of publications, see WP:ENN.
 * This and this are blog entries, see WP:USERG again.
 * Yunshui (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re:the sources in the article:
 * |titl 1 might pass WP:RS. Its independence is debatable, given that it is almost entirely the words of the company's founder.
 * 2 is just a film listing, no information about the company beyond confirmation of existence.
 * 3 doesn't appear to mention Headpress at all.
 * Yunshui (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: is presently blocked for a username violation, but he has admitted he owns the article subject. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously promotional puffpiece. I can't find any usable sources either. EEng (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent reliable sources found. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2011 (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.