![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
The need for this page was discussed on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and there was support for its creation to inform users. And hopefully, eventually lead to a bot that checks ISBNs that lead to these and flag them. History2007 ( talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If a company doesn't have an article to WikiLink to, should we put an external link to the company's website? Normally, I don't think we wouldn't do this in article space, but since this is Wikipedia space, it's primarily for our benefit. I think it might be useful in case we're researching some source, but I wanted to run it past everyone first to see what others think first. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
List needs a short name such as WP:LOSPC. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This publisher looks like vanity press, see [2] [3] (I'm not contending that the two links are reliable, just that they indicate that it's vanity press), it looks like the reference works have no peer review. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we include subsidy publishing companies? The issue was brought up by an editor who pointed out that the books at Prewrath are subsidy published, after I removed his self-published book. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see the template:
on List of self-publishing companies
... but, quite frankly, I am confused, as I am sure many others are too. We have two parallel articles in two parallel name spaces with the identical name, and neither concisely makes clear why the apparent duplication.
I suppose one is supposed to be resources for people wanting to self-publish and the other, maybe is a list of self-publishing channels? Maybe that would explain why some companies are on both lists. In particular, I don't understand why one of these is in the Wikipedia name-space. Also, it is confusing that both pages have the same identical title. Maybe they should be merged? Maybe create a table and check off stats and services that each provide. A sortable merged list would begin to be useful. Enquire ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Damick Publications in the list. Website: www.damickpublications.com. Ckbansal23 ( talk) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out if this is a self-publishing/vanity press or not. It seems really confusing, based on this article [4] it appears they do some (see "CONTRACT LEVEL 4 (author contribution)"). Should it be included in the list? - GretLomborg ( talk) 22:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have included "Amazon Digital Services LLC" as another name under the Amazon entry. See, for instance, this. Looks self-published to me. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent intelligence and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coherent intelligence. - DVdm ( talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What happened? Last twitter message dates from 2013 and their website is gone ("This domain name is for sale"). Sclaes ( talk) 01:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:USEPS#The problem with self-published sources, a self-published article or book or monography which has been positevely reviewed by one or more peer-reviewed scientific or academic journals becomes a WP:reliable source to be cited in the WP articles. A positive review in a peer-reviewed jornal is not far different from a peer-review process of the book/article/monogrphy itself.
Therefore, to be self-published doesn't mean to be blacklisted from the WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.179 ( talk) 21:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that Sussex Academic Press (and its imprint The Alpha Press) are self-publishing houses, the first using a misleading name. There is no indication anywhere in their materials of a connection to any academic institution, and their website has a big "To Publish" button on it (i.e., they are advocating people to submit publishing inquiries). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
The need for this page was discussed on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and there was support for its creation to inform users. And hopefully, eventually lead to a bot that checks ISBNs that lead to these and flag them. History2007 ( talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If a company doesn't have an article to WikiLink to, should we put an external link to the company's website? Normally, I don't think we wouldn't do this in article space, but since this is Wikipedia space, it's primarily for our benefit. I think it might be useful in case we're researching some source, but I wanted to run it past everyone first to see what others think first. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
List needs a short name such as WP:LOSPC. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This publisher looks like vanity press, see [2] [3] (I'm not contending that the two links are reliable, just that they indicate that it's vanity press), it looks like the reference works have no peer review. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we include subsidy publishing companies? The issue was brought up by an editor who pointed out that the books at Prewrath are subsidy published, after I removed his self-published book. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see the template:
on List of self-publishing companies
... but, quite frankly, I am confused, as I am sure many others are too. We have two parallel articles in two parallel name spaces with the identical name, and neither concisely makes clear why the apparent duplication.
I suppose one is supposed to be resources for people wanting to self-publish and the other, maybe is a list of self-publishing channels? Maybe that would explain why some companies are on both lists. In particular, I don't understand why one of these is in the Wikipedia name-space. Also, it is confusing that both pages have the same identical title. Maybe they should be merged? Maybe create a table and check off stats and services that each provide. A sortable merged list would begin to be useful. Enquire ( talk) 04:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Damick Publications in the list. Website: www.damickpublications.com. Ckbansal23 ( talk) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out if this is a self-publishing/vanity press or not. It seems really confusing, based on this article [4] it appears they do some (see "CONTRACT LEVEL 4 (author contribution)"). Should it be included in the list? - GretLomborg ( talk) 22:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have included "Amazon Digital Services LLC" as another name under the Amazon entry. See, for instance, this. Looks self-published to me. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent intelligence and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Coherent intelligence. - DVdm ( talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What happened? Last twitter message dates from 2013 and their website is gone ("This domain name is for sale"). Sclaes ( talk) 01:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:USEPS#The problem with self-published sources, a self-published article or book or monography which has been positevely reviewed by one or more peer-reviewed scientific or academic journals becomes a WP:reliable source to be cited in the WP articles. A positive review in a peer-reviewed jornal is not far different from a peer-review process of the book/article/monogrphy itself.
Therefore, to be self-published doesn't mean to be blacklisted from the WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.179 ( talk) 21:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that Sussex Academic Press (and its imprint The Alpha Press) are self-publishing houses, the first using a misleading name. There is no indication anywhere in their materials of a connection to any academic institution, and their website has a big "To Publish" button on it (i.e., they are advocating people to submit publishing inquiries). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)