Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haworth 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 after improvements. ansh666 07:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haworth Press

Haworth Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

missfortune 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• REDIRECTDelete -- Haworth wasn't notable in 2008. As an imprint (subsidiary) of Taylor & Francis, even less so now. If someone wants to save some text and roll it into Taylor & Francis, do it now. Rhadow (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, so is it worth a redirect? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was notable in 2008,as one of the main publisher for library science, but it was also a pioneering publisher for what was then called gay studies, and other then-obscure disciplines . There are references available, particularly for the gay studies part, and I am adding them. And of course, having been notable then, it remains notable. (I agree it became less important after T&F bought it, & one of the refs I am adding added discusses why. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG mostly. Looking forward to seeing the extra sources.
  b} 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:HEY. New sources establish notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per recent article improvements and new sourcing. Suffiently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recent expansion and new sources are quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in accord with
  talk) 19:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'm rather surprised at the number of Keep !votes since not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability - which is a prerequisite for meeting GNG. References either rely on company announcements or interviews that are not intellectually independent - fails GNG,
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 22 December 2017 (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.