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. Seems like issues have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bompiani[edit]

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

Even if its notable it is ain't a proper article, I would suggest moving to Draft space if not delete Varun FEB2003 10:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it;s a famous publisher, but it needs sources; if there is a problem finding them, it can be merged into the article for the parent company. We do not remove articles just because they are incomplete; nor dowe needto move them to draft space, and in factwe can work on them better in main space where more people will see them. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a famous publisher (although it may still make sense at some point to merge it into another article.) It appears to be an imprint of Arnoldo Mondadori Editore that according to this brief blurb was expected to be sold this month (with Amazon one of the possible buyers). See Reuters. See also this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Pls see below; Original comment: ...to Valentino Bompiani. The target article is in a sorry state itself, but the subject itself is notable; pls see: Google book results, especially Censorship and Literature in Fascist Italy. Unless someone volunteers to improve the Bompiani article under discussion, I'd say redirect for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping DGG & Safehaven86 to see what you guys think about the redirect idea, to Valentino Bompiani. Pls see my comments above. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one practical way of handling it. It would be even better to find sources for a separate article, and i think given a knowledge of appropriate Italian sources it could be done. Looking at Safehaven's references (including one by Umberto Eco, no less) , the firm was originally part of RCS , not Mondadori though perhaps Mondadori bought i tin 2015 and is now trying to sell it in 2016 --(and it is not listed on Monodadori's list of imprints on its website. I think this is enough for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you're correct that Mondadori bought it last year and sold it this year. Because of this, I think it's best that it has its own article, since if we decided to do a redirect we'd have to decide where to redirect it to, and that would be a bit confusing given how it has bounced around as an imprint of different publishers over the years. I don't think it makes sense to redirect to Valentino Bompiani because I think it's unlikely that people looking for information on an active publisher are going to find what they want on a biographical page. As it stands, I'd say lets improve the Bompiani page. I'll see if I can give it a start. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being a notable publisher and hopefully article improvements in the near future, per above discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: great improvements and citations from ‎Safehaven86 -- thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was really fun to do research on this publisher. Quite an interesting history. I'm going to check the news for who ends up buying it--looks like it should be sold by the end of the year based on the anti-trust ruling. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a legitimate article, though there are ATTACK elements in it relating to the former Prime Minister of Italy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2016 (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.