Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Hyperion

: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 speedy keep. Keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:N has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 04:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Disney Hyperion]]=

:{{la|Disney Hyperion}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Disney Hyperion}})

Cannot find third party reliable sources that talk about it -- should probably be merged into HarperCollins, if sources can be found. If sources can't be found, should probably just be deleted for now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep (but move to Hyperion Books). Reasonably prominent publisher which has been in existence almost 20 years. [http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20613FF3F5A0C748DDDAD0894D9494D81] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Metropolitan90. Here are a couple of Los Angeles Times articles about the company[http://articles.latimes.com/1995-04-30/business/fi-60706_1_disney-and-hyperion-books/2][http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/04/entertainment/et-webbook4]. Lots of other sources out there (almost 2,000 hits at Google News Archives[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hyperion+books%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22hyperion+books%22&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=k2q&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=PbkfTYa9LZHGsAPendHDCg&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQpwU&fp=b07f551f8262d809]).--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep -- As nominator. The LA Times/NY Times articles clearly satisfy WP:NOTABLE. Sorry -- I don't know why nothing came up for me when searching. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Metropolitan,Sadads (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.