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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This publishing company has had barely any coverage in reliable third-party sources. The BBC reference in the article only mentions the publisher as a side-note at the bottom of the page. The rest of the references are either broken or belong to the company itself. The company hasn't even published any works notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. This article should have been deleted on one of the previous two AfDs, but hopefully third time's the charm! – PeeJay 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - firstly, what right does the nominator have to say "This article should have been deleted on one of the previous two AfDs" - one was a clear keep and the other was no consensus. I hate to accuse anyone of sour grapes, but that's what this looks like, as on each previous occasion the nominator "voted" for delete. Secondly, the BBC article is about the collective's most important publication. You say "the article only mentions the publisher as a side-note" - that may be true, but the whole article is about "In That Number" which is referred to as "a significant work of football reference in its own right". If this AfD succeeds, most of the publication houses in Category:Book publishing companies of the United Kingdom will also have to be deleted on the same grounds. Of the first four in that category, only one has any independent references. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the BBC article is about the publication, then the publication should have an article, not the publisher. There's nothing notable about this publishing company, as proven by the complete lack of references that deal specifically with the company itself. – PeeJay 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I know I !voted "delete" on the last AfD, but there has been no community consensus to delete this article after two AfDs, and Daemonic Kangaroo makes a valid argument for keeping. GiantSnowman 13:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does he though? Like I said above, the BBC story used in the article only mentions Hagiology once, and if the book "In That Number" is that significant a football reference, maybe it should have an article instead. – PeeJay 07:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the reliable sources given are about books, not the publisher. They mention Hagiology only in passing.--Korruski^Talk 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sorry, I'm with Peejay. Notability is not transferable, and if this publisher does not meet the GNG or WP:ORG on its own merits, then it should be deleted or merged to the appropriate article. Speaking of merits, can we judge this AfD on them, and not on whether the nom's daring to diss the previous consensus or whether other publishing house articles may or may not be at risk? WP:AGF, please.  Ravenswing  21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Four independent sources, yes, but none of them devotes more than two sentences to the publisher itself. The reviews could be used to establish notability for the individual books - In that number might even justify an article - but Hagiology would appear to fail WP:ORG by a very long way. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the wind seems to be blowing towards deletion, can I suggest that the article content is trimmed and merged into the Southampton FC article, with the Hagiology article becoming a redirect, especially bearing in mind the large number of redlinks that deletion would cause. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Cleaning up those links with AWB or a similar engine would take about 90 seconds, truth be told. Is there any reason to believe that this is all that likely a term for searches?  Ravenswing  14:41, 27 January 2011 (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.