Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Dog Publishing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. John254 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Dog Publishing

Black Dog Publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable publisher. Article was recreated shortly after being deleted per an expired prod. Only outside reference is trivial, and a Google search only really indicates that yes, they publish books. Author of previous version Andrew2312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) also spammed articles like No Wave and London Eye with ads for books by this publisher. --Finngall talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I take it you don't wish to apply the same standards here that you give to other independent publishers? Was most surprised when you deleted the original article, to be frank, given wikipedia's acceptance of articles focusing on some of Black Dog's publications as referenced. And likewise your bizarre statement that the only contributor to the article was the spamming poster mentioned, seeing as I was in the process of expanding the entry significantly before deletion. Poului 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Finngall didn't delete the article, he tagged it for deletion and an administrator agreed with him. And he didn't say Andrew2312 was the "only" contributor. Katr67 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia policy on articles like this are not clear. It is notable, as its been selected as the best small publisher in London, which by definition means England. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians, do a quick google on an article and if nothing found, then its non notable. Please remember that Google themselves have said that only beteen 3%-8% of the worlds information is online. scope_creep 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where does it say it is the best small publisher in London? That's not in the article. The article originally said "Black Dog was recently selected by Time Out magazine as one of London's most important...", though the article actually says "In an industry almost entirely dominated by big boys and blockbusters, it's a delight to discover the delicate charms of the capital's little literary imprints" and Black Dog is relegated to the "Other petite publishers" section. There is no mention of any of these publishers being "best". Katr67 03:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all, Katr67, Finngall (or whichever obsessive it was who got the last article deleted) did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality - he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently. And secondly, the standards you apply to TimeOut's "ranking" of the publishers it covers is patently ridiculous, especially when considering that two of the "relegated" publishers in the article have wikipedia entries themselves, whilst three of four featured more prominently do not. Last of all, scope_creep didn't claim that the TimeOut article said Black Dog was the best in London, only that it has been selected as the best in the past. Poului 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • "Finngall...did claim that Andrew312 was the only person involved as a reason for its triviality..." False. I only referred to him as the original author. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that point. And even if we allow for your interpretation that I said he was the sole author, there's nothing there that says I claimed that as a reason for anything.
  • "...he certainly ignored all of my contributions all too conveniently." False. I did not ignore the changes you made to the previous version of the article after I placed the PROD, but I didn't think they addressed the concerns that I raised. And again, I didn't perform the actual deletion--I have no way of knowing whether the deleting admin ignored your improvements or simply didn't believe they were sufficient. You'll have to ask him.
I'm not going to plead innocent to being an obsessive at times, but flinging accusations like the above is neither productive nor particularly relevant to the discussion. --Finngall talk 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Ignoring" is not the same as denying; you declined to mention any of my contributions, yet you still went out of your way to spontaneously point out the original poster's supposedly lone campaign to set up the article. Exactly why would you care to mention such things on a discussion board exclusively created in the interests of discussing the reasons for the article's deletion? Seeing as this new article was set up by me, may I suggest it best not to insult my credibility and suggest some equivalence with me and the original poster purely on the grounds that I decided to re-open proposals for the publisher's inclusion on the site, and furthermore that we stick to genuine observations made in regards to the entry, the majority of which, as you can see, favour its inclusion. Poului 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per scope_creep. Google results =/= notability. Hansonc 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The press coverage, archived on their site, establishes sufficient notability. Books and culture matter, so even if you think it's close, I urge airing on the side of caution and retaining. Shawn in Montreal 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable publisher, covered in The Bookseller and other offline publications. -- JHunterJ 00:31, 1 November 2007 (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.