Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real People 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real People Press

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

This is a clearly non-notable company. See WP:CORP for significant evidence of that. Very few sources exist for company. AusLondonder (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as it stands - would really really need RSes. Though that would require someone hitting newspaper archives, etc - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steve Andreas, the company's founder (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage about the subject. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His notability is pretty darn questionable too - I see two non-primary sources on his article ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... and while we're at it have a look at Stephen Gilligan too. His not-ability is supported mainly by self-published material on his website. Famous _dog (c) 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom has been (temporarily) blocked as a disruptive (editor), (Remaining unproven is question he is possible) sockpuppet - creator of inappropriate AFDs. this one probably camouflage for his politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above claim appears to be entirely false - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not blocked. Despicable lie. AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on AusLondoner's for disruptive editing was temporary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory - please strike your incorrect comments. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ref's are purely existance. No notability is established. Jcmcc (Talk) 08:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt is made to cite sources that have this publisher as their subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2015 (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.