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. After three weeks we have no views in favour of deletion other than the nominator's. Discussion re merging can continue on the article's talk page. Michig ( talk) 08:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply

WordFire Press

WordFire Press (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Anderson is notable. The firm is not. We do not publish catalogs, neither publishers' catalog nor any other. almost everything is cited from Anderson's blog. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I created the article after reading two Huffington Post articles about WordFire Press; those and the fact that they republished Allen Drury's works make the company notable to me. Plus they have recently released several never-before-published novels by Frank Herbert. Looking at it now, the extensive list of their works does seem crufty and may overshadow the rest of the article, I think I got carried away. Removing the bulk of it would refocus the article on what is notable.— TAnthony ^Talk 05:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I've slashed the list of selected publications, putting the most notable into prose (with citations). I also have some other references to add.— TAnthony ^Talk 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: I appreciate TAnthony's efforts to make the article more encyclopedic in tone, but to my eye, the most significant issue remains sourcing. The bulk of those sources fall well short of the bar of WP:RS and being even more unacceptable for establishing notability, being both primary sources and blogs. And the remaining three sources all reference the company incidentally. Only one of those three (the first Huffington Post article referenced), actually discusses the Publishers themselves, and then for all of two sentences. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG at present, but I would like to give TAnthony a chance to dig up something more because I !vote delete. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

On a side note, can I ask the names of those Herbert novels? Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the input. The first HuffPost article is almost entirely about WordFire Press/Anderson so I'm a little confused why you would think otherwise. Basically what I think makes this company notable at this point (and why I created the article) is its reprint of the Drury works, as well as the old and new Herbert works. Advise and Consent is a hugely notable novel that was out of print for a long time and much in demand, as both HP articles and the WSJ review suggest. The article discussed why WordFire got the deal for the reprints over other publishers. Herbert's new books (High Opp, etc. listed in the article) are obviously notable since he's been dead for 30 years (and the HP article mentions them). The citations from Anderson's blog are just to provide detail for readers, and actually the fact that books exist doesn't really require a citation at all, unless their existence is being challenged LOL. This article is short and to the point, I think the first reference alone is enough to assert its notability so I'm not sure why it's preferable for it to be deleted.— TAnthony ^Talk 18:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually I read the Drury section in more detail and there is a little bit of substance there. More sourcing would still be nice to establish that the topic is encylopedically relevant. Notability is not inherited so even if Frank Herbert's novels or Advise and Consent are imminently notable, that doesn't mean their publisher is. We establish that by the number of different reliable sources and the depth with which they discuss the topic. Huffington Post is a decent start, but more would sell this better on GNG. As to the Herbert works, I'm not seeing reference to "new" novels but rather reprints of several that were out of print for long period -- that's awesome news, but I'm not sure it's setting the publishing press alight with discussion.

With regard to the blog, those types of sources aren't allowed for sourcing any kind of content; you're quite correct that novels can be their own primary source, but that doesn't mean those sources should stay even if some of the content the currently are (inappropriately) used to support does. And this is just one of the many reasons they are not allowed; they often show up to puff up sourcing early in an article's life so it can survive scrutiny. I'm not saying you knowingly and strategically did that, I'm just saying it's one of numerous reasons we remove them -- to make matters clearer. Anyway, my ultimate opinion on this matter is that an extra (secondary, independent, and reliable) source or two could be the difference between this surviving AfD or not. Do you feel you've exhausted available sourcing? Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 19:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Selective merge to Kevin J. Anderson. The current sourcing is rather short of what is needed for standalone notability and, while I can see some further potential sources, I am not seeing enough substantial ones to clearly surpass that level. However, Anderson himself is notable, there are enough reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post) in this article to make it clear that WildFire Press warrants a paragraph or so in Anderson's article, and there are enough GHits (and, for that matter, incoming links from other Wikipedia articles) to justify a redirect. PWilkinson ( talk) 11:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• weak Keep may just meet WP:GNG, is this a source that can be used "Is the New 'Star Wars' Trilogy the Story of the Solo Twins and Darth Caedus?". as it mentions some books that are published by Wordfire Press. Would it be appropriate for some of the articles info to go to Kevin J. Anderson and the rest being turned into a list article which could incorporate the 30 or so wikiarticles that presently mention wordfire as a publisher of the book/author. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The latter suggestion would not be appropriate, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; we don't maintain lists of books produced by particular publishers. But some of the content certainly can be moved into Kevin J. Anderson. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

(yes i know this is getting off topic:) why not? have you seen some of the lists wiki has? eg. List of assets owned by Microsoft Corporation or this one List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair brilliant:)), as a wikibooknut i would love to see wikilists of various publishers and in publisher articles lists of wikilinked authors, illustrators and books:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolabahapple ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, you could always broach the issue at WP:Central discussion, WP:Village pump, or Wikipedia Talk:WWIN, if you feel strongly that this type of content ought to be allowed, but community consensus in the past has always been that manner of information is not encyclopedic in nature, and I must tell you honestly that opening up the floodgates with particular regard to letting companies list their products at length strikes me as just about the very last notion a large number of editors are going to support. But you can always try if you feel you have a compelling new take on this old issue.

Note however that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not relevant to this particular case. (That said, it looks like List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair has been nominated for deletion three times and it seems to me that the closure of the last one as keep was in error, since the vast consensus was to delete on the grounds of WP:NOTDIR. The list of Microsoft assets is entirely viable, as it doesn't violated WP:NOTDIR because the subject is not an arbitrary cross-categorization and it doesn't violate WP:NOTCATALOG because subsidaries and so-forth are components of the company, not products.) Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 03:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Leaning towards merge I think PWilkinson basically has the right of this; there's content to support mention somewhere in the encyclopedia, but the topic looks like it falls a little short of GNG at present; Kevin J. Anderson is the obvious candidate for merge. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 02:22, 5 March 2015 (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.