Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focus Point Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Daniel 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus Point Press

Focus Point Press (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The nom was declined by DGG (talk · contribs) because the article "seems to assert notabity" (edit summary). I contest this. Two publications were deemed notable enough to mention: one that started in May, and one that is intended to start in October. The notability of neither publication is asserted. There is no non-trivial outside coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All references provided (in the External Links section) are either republishings of articles by an FPP magazine, or corporate press releases. If this company is notable enough for Wikipedia, this article doesn't show it. AecisBrievenbus 12:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that the article's author, Stdalton (talk · contribs), is probably Stephen Dalton, staff reporter for FPP. AecisBrievenbus 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is advertising disguised as an article. Lacks independent sources. - Jehochman Talk 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed, that is WP:SPAM without independent sources to establish notability. Carlosguitar 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and comment. Sources listed in article are all primary sources, press releases, or have little to do with subject. First several pages of gsearch don't turn up independent, reliable sources. As to the speedy tag, it was placed on the article 1 minute after creation. I would have declined that one, too, and changed it to a prod. --Fabrictramp 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Currently no evidence of notability and no reliable secondary sources.--Danaman5 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Just a clarification, Speedy A-7 is for articles that don't assert notability, in other words, they don't make any sort of claim of notability that warrants inclusion. This article asserts notability...it just doesn't actually have any. --UsaSatsui 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Exactly. Unless something important can be said, it should be deleted. Given that "the flagship publication of the brand, was first published online in May of 2007" I would doubt it can be shown to be important, at least yet. No prejudice against re-creation if they become notable. . DGG (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2007 (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.