Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collections from Easton 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   delete. Tone 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

List of collections from Easton Press

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The press is notable (though the article is sub-par), but this list of collections (really, a list of lists of collections) falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easton Press is a notable press of collectible books. Although it could be more thorough, this list is very useful for determining the titles included in the various Easton Press collections as there is no catalog published by Easton Press with such a listing. It also helps in determining what books have been discontinued in a collection for aftermarket purchases. Zuktuul (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Zuktuul (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Not my favorite WP page ever, but seems to meet the criteria for a list: logical and finite boundaries, utility to Wikipedia users... Useful subpage for Easton Press. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as essentially being spam - Wikipedia is not a catalog for Easton Press. Lady  of  Shalott  06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I have notified WP:WikiProject Bibliographies of this discussion. Lady  of  Shalott  06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – although against my character, this list does not meet the notability standard for standalone lists—WP:NOTESAL. I spent over an hour trying to find at least one reliable source, independent of Easton Press that discussed their collections as a group.  As far as I can tell, there is none. Many of the individual collections are discussed in sources, but even those sources are essentially promotional material in various other publications.  But nothing, especially nothing independent of Easton, discusses their collections as a group.  This list hasn’t passed the most basic hurdle for list notability.  Although I would fully support and embrace the concept of  Usefulness as a valid reason to keep a WP article, unfortunately it isn’t one today.  I also disagree with this list being called spam, it’s not.  It’s just a list that hasn’t met the basic list notability hurdle—WP:NOTESAL.  If sources can be found that discuss Easton Collections as a group, I will change my position. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage discussing the list contents "as a group" means it fails WP:NOTESAL and WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing here to show that this list of books is notable. While some of the books themselves are notable, that doesn't mean that Easton Press is notable for printing copies of them. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Also, I want to note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a valid arguing point. We're not a directory for people wishing to buy from Easton Press. This list has no encyclopedic merit, which is what a list would require in order to pass WP:LISTN.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete. There is no independent coverage of "collections from Easton Press", so it fails WP:NOTESAL. Usefulness is not a notability criterion. Notability is not inherited from Easton Press. Lagrange613 17:08, 27 December 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.