Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Press of America


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

University Press of America

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, non-notable company. The article was speedy deleted once for being an advertisement, and then was recreated in 2007, existing as a stub since with no third-party references. The only third-party mentions I could find online were incidental mentions of it in reviews, all comments indicating that it's considered a vanity press., Which doesn't preclude it from being a notable vanity press, of course, but I can't find evidence of its notability. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Rowman & Littlefield if the company is not notable. Kasaalan (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This company has been mentioned in the New York Times and in The Washington Post  Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Book collector here... This is a legit publisher and thus apt to be the object of Wikipedia links. Article is a stub, but that's not excuse for killing it. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Prsaucer1958.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 10:28, 21 July 2010 (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.