This page was
proposed for deletion by
Syrthiss (
talk ·
contribs) on 31 March 2010 with the comment: nn book publisher. article is entirely self-referenced It was seconded by Codf1977 ( talk · contribs) on 2010-03-31 It was contested by Dominus ( talk · contribs) on 2010-03-31 with the comment: remove {{prod}} as per Talk page |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the proposer's rationale fails. Google Scholar search for "Zed Books" finds 50,000 references to books published by this publisher. Clearly someone thinks these books are worth reading and discussing. Wikipedia search for "Zed books" or "Zed press" finds 500 articles that reference works published by Zed. So I conclude that this publisher unquestionably exists and is not a fringe or vanity press. OpenLibrary search [1] [2] finds that they have published over 3,000 books. So I conclude that they are a significant publisher.
The question I now ask is whether this publisher satisfies WP:GNG. I think it is extremely likely that it does. The article and the publisher's web site claim that it has been established for more than thirty years. The searches above indicate that it is well-known. It seems very likely that information about the subject exists in multiple independent sources.
Even if the subject were to fail WP:GNG, it might well satisfy the verifiability and notability guidelines. This is evidently a publisher of some importance.
— Dominus ( talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that notability can be established for a publisher that has published hundreds of books, but the problem is because it specialises in academic texts then it may not get a lot of mainstream attention. We can at least give it some time in that respect. The main problem was the promotional nature of the article, listing its entire inventory and the editorial review board. If people want this information they can go to the publisher's website, and the article should be limited to its operational infrastructure, its focus and of course anything else notable about it, along the lines of Macmillan Publishers. Editorial members and publications that are notable through third party reliable sources perhaps can be included. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This page was
proposed for deletion by
Syrthiss (
talk ·
contribs) on 31 March 2010 with the comment: nn book publisher. article is entirely self-referenced It was seconded by Codf1977 ( talk · contribs) on 2010-03-31 It was contested by Dominus ( talk · contribs) on 2010-03-31 with the comment: remove {{prod}} as per Talk page |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the proposer's rationale fails. Google Scholar search for "Zed Books" finds 50,000 references to books published by this publisher. Clearly someone thinks these books are worth reading and discussing. Wikipedia search for "Zed books" or "Zed press" finds 500 articles that reference works published by Zed. So I conclude that this publisher unquestionably exists and is not a fringe or vanity press. OpenLibrary search [1] [2] finds that they have published over 3,000 books. So I conclude that they are a significant publisher.
The question I now ask is whether this publisher satisfies WP:GNG. I think it is extremely likely that it does. The article and the publisher's web site claim that it has been established for more than thirty years. The searches above indicate that it is well-known. It seems very likely that information about the subject exists in multiple independent sources.
Even if the subject were to fail WP:GNG, it might well satisfy the verifiability and notability guidelines. This is evidently a publisher of some importance.
— Dominus ( talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that notability can be established for a publisher that has published hundreds of books, but the problem is because it specialises in academic texts then it may not get a lot of mainstream attention. We can at least give it some time in that respect. The main problem was the promotional nature of the article, listing its entire inventory and the editorial review board. If people want this information they can go to the publisher's website, and the article should be limited to its operational infrastructure, its focus and of course anything else notable about it, along the lines of Macmillan Publishers. Editorial members and publications that are notable through third party reliable sources perhaps can be included. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)