Talk:Edgewise Press

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Vexations Lopifalko Graywalls I have reversed the redirect command as I maintain that the Edgewise Press page should be maintained (and improved) because of its small publisher nonprofit status and because its art historical relevancy and because of its international scope

Shortcuts

Please discuss.Valueyou (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valueyou: "small publisher nonprofit status" does not count for anything toward notability. And "art historical relevancy" needs multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject in order to support that. They can be online and offline sources. Do you have such sources? -Lopifalko (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To AfD it goes then. Graywalls (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Lopifalko Graywalls Yes I have them and will be adding them in. For starters Peter Carravetta, Language at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Literature, and the Poetics of Culture. Why so hasty to eliminate?Valueyou (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valueyou: Some thoughts on this idea of "hasty"... If you bring an article to the fore, it needs sources, otherwise it will be dealt with using the mechanisms we have at our disposal. There's no sense of dealing with it in haste, or not in haste, dealing with it is just an administrative task that needs to be done, so people are going to enact such policies whenever and wherever they see fit. There's no sense of 'time' that comes into play with the various policies that apply. Imagining that an article can exist without sources is misguided. If you have sources then they need to be there at the start, at least, enough of them to survive WP:GNG or WP:NCORP etc. So the question comes back around to why, if you have sources, why haven't you described them from the outset. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]