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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage, or really much coverage of any kind in reliable sources. It's a bit strange since I would expect a publisher of academic material to be notable, but I don't see how the article's subject passes WP:GNG. Maybe it's just hard to find sources in Google when most of the search results are works published by the company. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The publisher's only outputs seem to be a journal that doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS and a series of academic monographs that probably don't meet WP:NBOOK. If either of their publications were notable there might be an argument to keep and rename, but I don't think that's an option here. And agree that I'm not seeing any sign that they could meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (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.