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. Jamie^☆S93 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cozzen Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of previously deleted material after coi warning (User:Cozzpublications created article Cozzen Publication). No indication through a Google search company is notable. Greedyhalibut (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not understand why this is not a speedy delete by at least 3 criteria : COL/spam, non-notable company or recreation Porturology (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think i understand now what DGG meant byn commenting we need to enforce the CSD policy more. That article seems to fall under none of the three mentioned CSD categories. It is by no means blatant advertising - the initial version didn't even have the website linked. A7 is only valid with articles that don't have a claim to notability, yet "published numerous books" is a pretty good claim to notability. And last, recreation? The logs don't list any deletion under this title, and a quick check didn't reveal an AFD removal of a similar titled page before. Was there any AFD related removal under another name? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete No sources found to indicate notability. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, without prejudice for recreation if sourceable later, as Excirial, lack of reliable sources to support article for now. Completely object to WP:BITE violations in the way this was handled though. Fully endorse rationale that no CSD criteria apply. --MLauba (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actually as written I think it it might fall under C7 for companies, as it gives no indication that it might be notable. Nonetheless it isn't a safe speedy, for the question is whether there is more to say, and whether there are sources. looking at its web page & Google, the answer is no and no. DGG (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (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.