Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Hell Press (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

University of Hell Press
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was nominated on 2 June 2013 (3 days ago), was speedy deleted and the previous AFD was procedurally closed. The original author has recreated the article suggesting there are better/more sources than the original. I disagreed, tagged it for G4 speedy deletion but that doesn't seem fair under the circumstances. Best to let a proper AFD run its course. For the record, I don't think the company in question meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart 111  05:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article was previously deleted. It still serves for promotion/advertising and lacks any notability. It seems to just be created by a single person and has no real RS except for what he has provided. Tyros1972 Talk 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and SALT as advertising/spam, given that it was recently AFD'd and immediately re-created. For what it's worth it isn't notable either and doesn't even try to claim otherwise.  12 titles, according to the article, and not a single notable thing among them.  Half of them are by one guy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I respectfully contest deletion. University of Hell Press is small and relatively new, but it is certainly real and notable.  The press has established connections with Powell's Bookstore, a hugely notable entity.  I have reviewed other Wiki entries in the small press category and I fail to see what differs in this one that warrants exclusion.  The history is factual, the bibliography verified (12 titles by 7 authors).  I am more than happy to amend any text found irrelevant or offensive; please identify.  Thank you for your consideration!  Editress13 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a case where editing the article will help. It doesn't come anywhere close to passing our notability guidelines for corporations and that doesn't look likely to change anytime soon.  If by some bizarre miracle the article is kept (and we're talking probability levels right up there with Godzilla getting hit by lightning, winning the lottery, and flying to the moon all on the same day), then it would have to be done by someone without a conflict of interest.  Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG. To the content creator: you'll need to muster a few published sources about the press... Get something from the Oregonian and Willamette Week etc. about the press, and then things should be good to go. This has been through the deletion process twice now, so things will be closely watched. The rule of thumb is that three such sources are a pretty certain pass — WP defines "notability" as multiple, independently-published, substantial pieces of coverage about the subject in so-called "reliable sources." Sometimes two such pieces will fly. I'm not seeing anything that counts to GNG in the footnotes or in a cursory Google search, sadly. Don't feel bad, just see to it that when such sources appear they are mined appropriately for the third attempt at a WP piece. best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis /// Carrite (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No SALT - As per discussion on the author's talk page User talk:Editress13. The page was only recreated because it was a "speedy delete" and did not get a chance to pass/fail AfD. I ask the admin if this fails (which it looks like it will) to please view our discussion and to consider this request as this is not a typical SPAMMER just someone new to wiki. The author will only recreate the article in the future if and when it passes wiki nobility. Tyros1972 Talk 13:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Their only contribution to Wikipedia is this one, spammy article, which they re-created almost immediately after it was deleted as an advertisement.  That's pretty much the definition of a Wikipedia spammer.  Whether they did it with a heart full of malice or not isn't our place to speculate and would be pointless anyway.  The article isn't coming back until someone without a conflict of interest can prove a case at DRV that the subject is significantly more notable & verifiable than it is currently. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, even if this is salted a person with a Conflict of Interest can recreate the piece if they declare their COI. The road back doesn't necessarily go through Deletion Review, it just needs one administrator to sign off on the piece (See; WP:SALT). What it is going to need are multiple, published, independent sources. If two or three of those appear down the road (as they might), it is a whole new ballgame. I do not advocate salting here, by the way, per Tyros1972 above. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2013 (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.