Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford

Second discussion was originally at this page, but I moved it to Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination).--Chaser - T 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 speedy keep. The nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. This closure is procedural and makes no judgement on the notability of the article; it may be renominated without prejudice by a user in good standing. MastCell Talk 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The company clearly does not meet notability criteria, is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising. SKRINE2 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

Article Footnotes

^ a b Morgan, Mogg. Mandrake of Oxford: Who We Are
 * A self-published source which does not support notability

^ Evans, Dave. Occult E-books meets Mogg Morgan of Mandrake
 * "secondary sources" must not include ". . . works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself"

^ Morgan, Mogg. About me
 * A self-published source which does not support notability and is self-serving

^ Jan Fries Reviews
 * advertising for the company and does not support notability

^ UWE Bristol: The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic (JSM)
 * advertising for the company's act of publication only and does not support notability


 * Keep, this company is just as notable as the modern Mandrake Press, which has been combined with an historic Mandrake Press into one article to escape scrutiny over notability (see Talk:Mandrake Press for lengthy arguments over just this camouflaging). Plus, publication of a peer-reviewed academic journal for the University of the West of England leads me to believe that this is a reputable and known company. IPSOS (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not remove the detailed reasons given for deletion. Please stick to the content of the article in question and the Wikipedia criteria for retention.--SKRINE2 02:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NN. Should go asap. In addition, I suspect a case of WP:COI with USER:IPSOS. --Javit 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia not a commercial directory. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per IPSOS. And no, I have no COI. GlassFET 15:23, 5 June 2007 (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.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)