Talk:Boxfire Press

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... it was created 10 seconds ago and I'm still updating. --Kyej2 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll remove the tag. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that someone would delete all references to any of the press current authors, and then propose deletion complaining that it's a vanity press for its "one" author. A quick glance at its Web site would show it has over two dozen projects in the works and a lot more than one author. Shady. Kyej2 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking through the history it seems to have (or had -- they keep getting removed about five different mentions in independent sources... That's more than many of the publishing stubs that have been up for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.144 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one person keeps removing them and calling articles that mention the press' authors and books "irrelevant". Its working with significant authors, too, like Stephen Graham Jones but that keeps getting it removed. It seems, someone has issues solely because the press was founded by one of its authors and is manipulating the article to hide neutral, relevant information that would help establish notability. Kyej2 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this searching after reading about the company in two well-read DC blogs today about an upcoming book, one of which, the Fishbowl DC mention, I see have been removed twice, I think, by the same person. I can't really interpret the edit history well.

Deleting Sources while simultaneously questioning notability / lack of citations[edit]

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I've been searching for the what policy is here. I noticed one of the edits onthis page was "removed unsourced info" by the same user removing references and information without sources -- questionable, as I came here knowing this company and know that some of the info about theshortestfiction.com was correct. Anyway I think the policy is to insert flags, not willy-nilly delete.

So, please reference this page and use the templates as needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed

Also, I think this behaviour violates this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point which says not not summarily delete everything that appears to be unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.117.227 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]