Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaoi house


 * 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. The defamatory content is now gone, but consensus is that this is still not a notable publisher.  Sandstein  19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi house

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Non-notable publishing company.  All references I could find appear to be self-promotion by the subject.  Most of the editors for this article are single-purpose-accounts, editing only this article and the article about the publisher's apparent top author, Kira Takenouchi (BTW, see also Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi). I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As above. Current contents veer dangerously close to an attack page by drawing attention to the owner's supposed mismanagement and mental illness. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Dangerously close? This page reads like outright defamation, especially the part about working with a mental illness. Not sure if can be saved with a rewrite, but I didn't find enough Eng lang. cites to do it. EBY3221 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as attack page. The personal attacks are attached to a blog, not to a reliable source. I removed them and tagged for speedy deletion as an attack article, which it is.  Let's not let this go on too long.  --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Declined speedy. The defamation was added by an anon and has been reverted. Always best to check for vandalism before assuming the worst. No comment on the notability of the subject. Looking through various versions, one has to doubt notability. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad, but now you can ban me from Wikipedia! Praise your juju.  Blechnic (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not go that far. Those who have proposed deletion based on "attack" may want to discuss the article's other  merits and demerits. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As with Kira Takenouchi, Delete as lacking notability or verifiable, reliable sources. Little more than a vehicle for promotion of subject's works.  Dloh  cierekim  03:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Has sufficient context to identify the subject. Even asserts notability. An article can be short and still assert notability. < >  Dloh  cierekim  13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to find anything that could be called an assertion of notability. Please help me out. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "One of the first" asserts  notability.  Dloh  cierekim  12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - It is notable, as pointed out above. I suspect that some are voting to delete because they object to what it publishes. Yes, I will WP:ABF in this case. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "One of the first" out of context doesn't assert notability. What does it publish that's objectionable?  Wikipedia isn't a censored encyclopedia.  Which users are you accusing of this, or is it just an unfounded guess?  --Blechnic (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose if it described what Yaoi novels were in the sentence, then the reader could understand this as notability. As it stands it's an insider's article, though.  Probably, this sentence, if fleshed out and sourced, could establish notability.  --Blechnic (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Anyway, I think that the rush to delete a stub is a little absurd. Give it some time to improve, there is nothing gained by deleting it. It's a real company, so it's notable enough for me (note that WP:N is not a policy, it is just a guideline). The vandalism was reverted and there are no attack issues now. So I continue to vote Speedy Keep. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is I can't find any articles about it, only blog entries. Can you link me to something?  I'm generally keen on keeping publishing houses, especially small ones.  So, can you show me something, a reliable source, that asserts it is the first, or anything that makes it a real publishing house?  My issue now is it seems like a fly-by-night operation, not a real publishing house, since there's nothing but blog entries.  --Blechnic (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please strike out one of your votes, voting twice is not allowed! --Blechnic (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Asserts notability is not the same as having notability. Seem all of the delte rationales above. Also, you might want to reread Speedy keep. cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  22:12, 15 June 2008 (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.