Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaoi 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yaoi Press

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article appears to be a coat rack for controversies the principal faced. (See their complaint at the Help Desk). While AfD isn't clean up, I am unable to find evidence to indicate this was a notable publishing company. A BEFORE shows nothing that would meet WP:ORG and if the company isn't notable, there's nothing on which to build an article. Star  Mississippi  14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  14:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete : sources in the current version do not amount to a showing of notability. Both ANN pieces are press releases and the Intersections journal article is not in-depth. The other sources are either unreliable or focused on the COATRACK issue Star Mississippi mentions. I was unable to find reliable, secondary, in-depth coverage of the company. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC) - striking vote 14:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to, with thanks to Jumpytoo for finding those sources. The first two look reliable, secondary, and in-depth. AGF on the Italian source and there's enough to pass notability criteria. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the organisation is likely not notable as I mentioned at the HD (sources are just press releases), and it is being used for what appears to be grudge-pushing against a BLP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is relisted, for clarity I'm also struck for same reason as Firefangledfeathers above, and the sources provided by Jumpy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Has WP:ORGCRIT compliant sources:
 * The BLP/COATRACK issues are editor conduct issues and can be resolved by blocks/page protection as needed. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The BLP/COATRACK issues are editor conduct issues and can be resolved by blocks/page protection as needed. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The BLP/COATRACK issues are editor conduct issues and can be resolved by blocks/page protection as needed. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The BLP/COATRACK issues are editor conduct issues and can be resolved by blocks/page protection as needed. Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep deletion isn't anti-vandalism, cleanup, or giving corporations what they want to further their agendas, and as Jumpytoo has shown, sources exist. Link20XX (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The first reference is a press release and the rest are either self-promotional or do not demonstrate significant coverage of the subject from a reliable source. Multi7001 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the PW piece a press release? How can you tell? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think the PW piece is a press release. According to the message at the top, "this story originally appeared in PW Comics Week on June 6, 2006". PW comics week was a weekly newsletter they ran according to their page on it, so clearly not a press release. I read the other sources and have no idea why you think they are "self-promotional" or not significant coverage, both are quite significant and no more self-promotional than other articles I have seen. Link20XX (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious how you evaluated the sources I've provided, I've did reliability checks on all 3 sources and they all seemed OK. Especially the Rough Guides one. Jumpytoo Talk 20:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Jumpytoo's sources look fine to me, and fine is all we require. Mlb96 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the current version seems to be a suitably referenced article; the previous version was a brazen coatrack hitpiece of questionable accuracy (dextromethorphan is not a stimulant, for example). Hell, it might warrant revdel -- but the article without it is fine to me. jp×g 19:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jumpytoo.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2021 (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.