Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Art Publishers

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 --JForget 00:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Art Publishers

Distributed Art Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Speedy Advertising.

Normal Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements per

talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

-- This is an important venue in the landscape of current publishing. It is a means for many small institutional catalogs to get out in the world and as such is a significant asset to the arts communities. I strong urge not deleting on grounds that it is advertising. If there is constructive feedback to be recommended for re-tooling or re-writing then offer those. Please don't delete out of hand for procedure of for lack of knowledge of the field. Thanks. C dog taylor (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Be as it may, it doens't meet WP:ORG, as far as anyone can demonstrate. --
  talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak Keep - a Google search reveals plenty of coverage, but most of it trivial, such as [1]. The mere fact that they've published many books doesn't (in itself) show notability, but it suggests that they might be. Better sources need to be found, but it seems to me that they are significant as publishers, in the New York art world if nowhere else. Terraxos (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google news search finds news stories about this company in Afterimage (July 2005, re a partnership with the Aperture Foundation), Publishers Weekly (January 2007, re a new web site; February 2007, re some internal personnel changes), not to mention plenty of coverage for their individual publications. A variation of the search finds Art Business News (September 2002 re their relationship to MoMA), Publishers Weekly (July 2004 and again in August 2005, both re their warehousing facilities), a recommendation in the New York Times to shop for art books through their catalog, some of the same stories again, and many minor mentions and quotes in other stories. Seems to satisfy the primary criterion of
  WP:CORP to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: appears notable. Do not see any reasonable way this could remotely be considered advertising. Plenty of content. Needs sourcing.Wikidemo (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein et al. But the article needs to be clearer as to what they are: distributors, publishers and ??? retail booksellers? Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.