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. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fehras Publishing Practices[edit]

Fehras Publishing Practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The article says they were est. 2015 so they have been an operating concern for at most six months. Maybe there is something in the German press but all I could find are links to their own web site and what looks like a blog entry in German [1]. Jbh^Talk 12:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article created by someone associated with the company. It looks like the company is just launching, with no significant coverage in independent sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, google brings up nothing except publisher website which is dearth of information, definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON This is an activity that has just started and so far has not produced anything. It may be notable later. LaMona (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. COI, no indication that it belongs in an encyclopedia, verges on advertising. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 4 July 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.