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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra Research

[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher, sourced to a self-reference. My Google search hasn't come up with any reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intended addendum to Vadim Rogovin and Nadezhda Joffe pages. Latter page mentions this organization but leads to dead link, former page should probably mention this organization, as it is the sole publisher in the author's native language. Recommend merge with another page. Perhaps a single page listing all Trotskyist Publications, but that would seem least favorable. YB1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, not publications, Publishers. Most recommend by far some mention on Rogovin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only in print form as far as I can tell. Once again, it may be best to clip back this article to a sentence or two and place it on the Vadim Rogovin page. For instance, "The sole publisher in Russian of Vadim Rogovin's works is Iskra Research;" with the remaining composition of the edit being fairly irrelevant. I can understand why a whole article may be excessive as it is a very small publisher. Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to deleting this page and sorting out other concerns later, by the way... Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 5 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, NW (Talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --DonaldDuck (talk) 09:08, 20 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.