Talk:Peter Lang (publisher)

Deletion Proposal
This article was proposed for deletion because on the grounds that it is not notable. Another editor removed the tag, claiming that this is "an important publisher". Wikipedia articles must be notable, and this article clearly does not meet those standards for a notable organization. If you believe it does, please edit the article so as to demonstrate notability.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the article needs improvement to demonstrate it adequately, and I plan to do that. The actual standard for notability in any given case is whatever the consensus is at AfD. It is enormously easier to nominate an article for deletion than to find good sources; I am normally working on dozens of articles at a time this way, so I would be grateful if you did not press me too hard; if you do, I will deal with it, but I will have to omit dealing with other important things. There are not enough people here willing to actually work on sourcing.
 * I remind you about WP:BEFORE--have you in fact looked for sources? If you'll tell me where, it will facilitate my work since I will not have to duplicate.    DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked briefly for sources on Google. I found nothing more than I would for any press -- it's name listed with its books, it's attendance at academic conferences (which anyone can do for a fee), etc.  Nothing that would meet notability requirements for an organization.   I believe it might have published a work or two by a notable person, yet I think anyone would be hard pressed to even find a "notable" book published on Peter Lang, except for maybe this one. Nonetheless, neither of the above two conditions by necessity denotes a notable organization, and Peter Lang itself has not accomplished anything notable or noticed in secondary sources.  I'm happy to get a WP:3PO and/or to give a month until the article is deleted, but I'm quite unconvinced that this is a notable press any more than any other non-notable, run-of-the-mill press.--Lhakthong (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added some links in an attempt to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonstacy (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo above. Should read "...attempt to establish..."

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)