Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Anne 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen Anne Press

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability, as per WP:CORP, also fails as it is promotional, and the author has (in my opinion) been making promotion edits to other pages. This has had a disputed proposed deletion, but I think "Queen anne Press" has already been deleted previously. Heywoodg  talk  10:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Queen anne Press" was my very first effort, which I freely admit was rubbish- even the name was not capitalized! Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - the association with Ian Fleming would seem to confer some measure of notability. Lady  of  Shalott  14:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Hello Heywoodg - this is my first article and thought it was quite well informed! I have now added more printed references which should provide enough notability, but if not, please let me know what else I can do. There are a number of publishers entered on wikipedia and thought this would be a good candidate to list. Mrs Alice Lucy  talk   —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Hello, I have removed the other stuff from the talk page, but feel free to put it back if you need to (otherwise people can go and take a look by clicking on "talk" at the top). I have also put a "keep" at the front to show that you want to keep the article (which is how it appears from your post, and helps people know at a glance). Cheers Heywoodg   talk  21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to keep it, but only if it meets notability requirements- a couple of other users suggest it may. I though adding links elsewhere would help its exposure, but you say it is promotion- I thought articles carried more weight with a good amount of links? Thanks again for your help and guidance. Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

.
 * Comment Probably ok for notability, but needs major improvements. It didn't take me long to find a sentence that was a word-for-word copy from here, so there are WP:COPYVIO issues here.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Any original text is quoted from the QAP website here, with their permission, so no WP:COPYVIO issues should exist - other websites may have used the same blurb, which I think is what you refer to here I suggest the article concerns historic significance rather than promotion, although I accept there may be some cross-over. Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) 12:35, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There's some evidence that the subject is notable, given the plethora of independent, probably reliable sourcing, its association with Ian Fleming, etc. That said, sourcing can always stand to be improved, and the article needs some work as others have mentioned above. The opening section has been substantially improved from a content standpoint since nomination, which definitely helps a weak keep vote go down a bit easier. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:19, 21 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.