Talk:Uitgeverij Prometheus

Inquiry on notability
Hi Drmies. In order not to be blocked for 100 years, I am taking this fully civilized approach. I do not believe this company is notable. This publisher is no more notable than any other. Normally, "a leading publisher" term is reserved for one of top-tier commercial houses, or a university-associated press like CUP or PUP. Sentence in italic is per another editor at an irrelevant AfD. I am just curious how you would opine if listed at afd, and what if I placed a notability tag? This has nothing to do with you, I am not harrassing, I never liked this article and I believe it does not belong on the project. Respectfully, Turqoise 127  04:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability guide for corporations doesn't require that a publisher be a "leading publisher", just that it be the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Do you think the citations fall short of this? Bongo   matic  13:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly do. I would be willing to discuss this, but for now I wish to place a notability tag and go from there.... maybe someone can add sources.Turqoise 127  21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure your Dutch is great, and that you have access to the newspaper archives, but since two of the references are for articles no longer available online and simply go to the front page, I was unable to evaluate the depth of coverage. It appears that a number of articles refer specifically to the publisher, not to the individual, and that's a search of Google News only, a source that may not have a terribly comprehensive selection of Dutch sources starting from 1953. Bongo  matic  23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not be condescending and uncivil with comments like "I'm sure your Dutch is great". The fact is, you saw it yourself, there are two references there (# 2 and # 4) that lead to a main page of some internet newspaper. And newspapers archives, well, we can not exactly verify. The two sources that are there are passing mentions (I used Google translate), hardly significant coverage. So, I guess sources better be added or we may have to place appropriate tags to the article. Turqoise 127  04:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

<--You never liked this article? Why not? You don't believe it belongs? Why? As a literary publisher, Bert Bakker is quite notable. I've added some more sources, to please you. De Volkskrant just put their archives behind a membership wall--I hope the seven other 'passing' references will satisfy other editor. Feel free to take it AfD if you like; I'm sure I'm not the only Wikipedian who knows a bit about WP:GNG and about literature in the Netherlands. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never liked this because it is some guy who worked at a big publisher and than broke off saying "Oh, I can do this". Opens up his own publishing company. The end. Nothing could be less notable except maybe me watching television. Anyone can start a publishing company and publish notable writers.
 * And your other comment, about "satisfying the other editor" almost feels condescending. The part that follows it -indirectly stating I do not know a bit about WP:GNG- is downright uncivil, please do not converse in such a way.
 * If so sure and comfortable with this article, why not nominate it yourself (since the pedia is all of ours main concern), and let the chips fall where they may? And maybe let's say that your like-minded friend Bongomatic abstains from voting? It's just an idea...Turqoise 127  04:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<--Huh? Who worked at a big publisher? Bert Bakker is a highly notable person. Some guy? And where did "some guy" say "I can do this"? Do you have a reliable source for this quote, in Dutch, Croatian, or English? And I never said you know nothing about GNG. In fact, your claim that I am suggesting that is evidence of paranoia more than anything else: I think you know plenty about it, but you choose to disregard it, which is why you make some poorly spelled nonsensical claims about "some guy" who is less notable than you watching television--but you have nothing of substance to say. Go ahead and nominate it. Why would I nominate my own article? And I don't need Bongo to help out--as I said, anyone who understands WP:GNG, knows anything about publishing, and is of good faith will have no problem seeing notability. That last part, yes, that is directed at you, Wikihounder and conspiracy theorist. I have given up on your good faith, and I no longer see the need to be polite to you--you're nothing but a waste of time, trying to get back at those who thought your vanity article was unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments were based upon a Google translation of the very first source at the time. It stated Bert Bakker worked at some big publisher and then created his own publishing. Sorry if that was wrong.
 * You say "Why would I nominate my own article", but I thought none of us own these articles, they are the project's. This statement indicates some WP:OWNERSHIP issues.
 * Your statement that you "see no need to be polite to me" is very hurtful and unbecoming of an editor who has administrator aspirations.
 * And your statement that "your vanity article was unencyclopedic" actually goes against two policies, WP:CIVIL (yet again trying to out an editor saying subject was me, and the subject was not me), and WP:what to avoid saying at afd (unencyclopedic). Thanks.Turqoise 127  23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your apology is accepted; the rest is neither here nor there. Let's close this discussion. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)