Talk:Oceana Publications/Archives/2017

Untitled
Oceana Publications seems to have published a large number of notable books, judging by the number of book reviews, the number of citations in GScholar, and so forth. There are lots more sources to add to this article, though I'm not sure I will have the time to personally add them as I have a lot of things to do round here. Oceana publications isn't "defunct" either. Works continued to be published by Oceana Publications after the purchase by OUP. As far as I am aware, a publisher can use an imprint of another publisher they have bought at any time, so the imprint cannot become defunct. James500 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please expand article text by finding information in RS to support notability. Trivial mentions, primary sources, and discussion of the former owner rather than the publisher do not support notability of the publisher.  SPECIFICO  talk
 * (1) Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. I am not obliged to find sources for someone who has very obviously made no attempt to find them himself and is also wilfully shutting his eyes to what is already in the article. (2) There are non-trivial secondary sources already present in the article in abundance. (3) GNG says that significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material". The biographies of Philip Cohen do contain significant coverage of Oceana Publications itself, even if their main topic is Cohen. In any event, if Cohen is BIO1E, in the sense that he is notable because he founded the company (and he does have an obituary in the NYT, which is normally regarded as conclusive proof of notability, because he founded the company), all his notability will contribute to the company. (4) I have added only a small fraction of what is available on the internet. Adding even the best sources will take a long time. I will probably ask someone to help me expand this. (5) You might like to read WP:DEMOLISH as well. James500 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish mentions of the owner from notability of the publishing company. Many of the references appear to fail that test.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the references fail no such test. James500 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any personal or professional relationship with the company or any of the persons who were associated with it? If so, please disclose here.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a preposterous suggestion and most certainly a personal attack. It would be like me accusing you of working for one of the company's competitors. I do, however, strongly object to ultra-deletionism, something that is per se incompatible with the aims of the project and, indeed, with common sense. And I could use much stronger words than that. James500 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will wait a while so you can continue trying to make the article viable. If it doesn't look any better I may open an AfD so that other editors can adjudicate the issue.  Meanwhile, I suggest you restore the notability tag you deleted, because that is a more immediate way to draw the attention of additional editors to the article.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An AfD would have no prospect of success. The arguments you've advanced so far are patently wrong. And even if oceana publications wasn't notable (which it is), the correct process would be to propose the merger of this article to the one on OUP. That is mandatory under WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:R and WP:BEFORE. Whilst there is enormous room for improvement, as the article is presently very incomplete, the article already is viable in its present state. It could however take a long time to 'complete' this article. That template cannot be placed on this article because its topic is obviously notable. In any event, since the effect of that template is to encourage deletionists to attack any article on which it is placed, it would not be conducive to improvements. That template facilitates indiscriminate mass nominations. This topic is of the utmost importance to the project: in order to study any academic subject properly, you have to carefully study the bibliography of the subject; and in order to study the bibliography, you have to study the publishers. If we were to remove this topic, we would punch a very damaging hole in the project, which would, amongst other things, break the citations in any Wikipedia article that cites one of Oceana's books. James500 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)