Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapwing Publications


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Lapwing Publications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficiently important to be cnosidered notable, based on the authors it has published. For publishers, this may be the only really usable criterion-- for them, the GNG works well in neither direction  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, Sadads (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I normally don't post "per nom" types of !votes, but in this case, keep per the rationale presented by User:DGG, which carries more weight than the generic, two-word "not notable" deletion rationale. Additionally, some sources found thus far: Irish Publishing News (unclear about the reliability of the source), and passing mentions in this The Irish Independent article. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (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.