Deletion of J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing

Comment: The company has received reasonably detailed coverage in a scholarly book, and some coverage in other sources so notability is established (especially if the lax standards which apply for the notability of the books its published are factored in per ). It's a reasonably prolific press, so there's likely to be more sourcing than is currently used through elements of book reviews and the like (that said, searches in Google News and JSTOR didn't return any useful results). The article strikes me as reasonably well balanced in its current state, and while it can certainly be improved it doesn't qualify for WP:TNT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: this isn't even close: there is no coverage on Google News whatsoever, no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks. As for this talk of 'counter-balancing the defamation' of Nazi Germany's soldier's, fortunately, I don't even need to get into that. This flagrantly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Normally I would agree that this a non-notable special interest publisher. But it has a certain impact on the "popular culture of the Romancers", as documented by Smelser/Davies. The company provided translations of many revisionist and apologetic works, many written by German veterans, and made them easily available to an English speaking audience. Thus Fedorowicz inadvertently shaped the way German military history of WW II is presented in the English Wikipedia. In fact, some of the company's titles, like their "Panzer Ace"-series (3 vols.), were apparently instrumental in shaping popular culture, i.e. memory of WW II, so strongly, that a stand-alone articles like "Panzer ace" in popular culture is considered worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. That being said, the main argument for deletion is formalistic in nature. I doubt that  is up to the peculiarities of the publishing market. Hard to tell, for example, if many of the smaller University Presses would be up to that challenge. So I did not find third-party source about the UP of Kentucky, which publishes many translations from German military historians. Anyway, there are now three further commendations by third party sources. Surely, the respective authors are like-minded and would not qualify as authorities of military historiography, but they support what are most likely unremarkable and uncontroversial claims, namely that J.J. Fedorowicz has a reputation and an impact in the field of militaria, which is exactly what Smelser/Davies claim. I am surprised, however, that this article was nominated for deletion so quickly, instead of asking for further sources or even adding content first
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: The coverage of this publisher in a single book, by Smelser et al, "''Myth of the Eastern Front''", is shallow and incidental, a handful of mentions of J J Fedorowicz as the publisher of this or that book written by some German veteran, and half a page about how Otto Carius thanks J J Fedorowicz for publishing his book in the foreword of ''Tigers in the Mud''. Okay, I get it, J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans. That's about sum total of the "coverage" of this company. The company website reveals it is a tiny three man operation, being mindful of , do they really deserve a Wikipedia article?  Doesn't objectively meet the notability criteria per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVERTISING||WP:COMPANY)

Comment: I'd note that the page was nominated for deletion a day after it was created. The nom apparently did not perform a  to assess the subject's notability and look for additional sources, which I easily located and since added to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.J._Fedorowicz_Publishing&curid=52386150&diff=752037822&oldid=751688714 diff
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)