Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annick Press


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Annick Press

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

None of the sources establish notability. There is one source behind a pay wall that might go into detail, but so far no one has coughed up the cash. Please see prior discussion at Talk:Annick Press. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Extensive press coverage, publishes award-winning books and nationally best-selling author/s. That's exactly what makes a publisher notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Publishers do not inherit notability from their authors/books. Which source would you say describes Annick Press directly in detail? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure that it's logical that publishers don't inherit notability from their authors.  If that is the case, then the only appropriate sources of notability for publishing companies would be articles describing, say, their business model or their fulfillment process; it's like saying that a professional sports team doesn't gain notability for the fame of its players or their record-setting efforts, but merely the excellence of its management.  In fact it might be said that authors would not have notability unless a publisher agreed to publish them, since self-publishing attracts no notability, so the notability must in some sense flow from the publisher to the authors.  I agree that people don't gain notability from their relatives, but I am having a hard time figuring out how a company doesn't gain notability from its products.  Accounting4Taste: talk 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's much more to this company than just a business model; it's got a history, a standard for what's suitable for children, its own bookbinding style, it's influence on the community, etc. Book publishing companies should be held to the same standards as any other organization. Taking the sports comparison, I would say a team becomes notable because of their achievements as a group, not because of the achievements of individual players. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe this publisher is notable for the reasons I've given on the article's talk page; I'll be adding more citations as I find them.  I should note that much of the corroborating material has been added recently and was not present at the time of the good-faith nomination.  Accounting4Taste: talk 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep while a publisher cannot necessarily or automatically be considered notable for, say, publishing 1 notable book, or by even by having 1 notable author (thought that probably always cinches it if they are the exclusive publisher), they will certainly gain nearly all their notability from what they publish. is MGM notable for their movies? would parlophone be notable if not for the beatles?. wait, thats notability by inheritance as well? this publisher has a reasonably solid reputation, based on its books, which is the primary standard for a publishers notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the key difference here is that we have secondary sources about MGM and Parlophone. If those companies had no press coverage on their own, we'd just briefly mention them in the infobox for a movie, or our article about the Beatles. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This particular publisher seems to have established a strong list of award winning authors. WP:NOTINHERITED is a guideline that outlines for us that just because X is associated with Y, and Y is notable, then X by mere association is not notable.  In the case of a publisher, it's notability is linked to the publications that it puts out, and the publisher isn't merely associated to the books and authors, having a stronger relationship and hand in the production of the book.  It's difficult to tell how deep the coverage is as the articles are behind pay walls, but,  appear to indicate that they are notable enough to attract some press attention,and especially in the second abstract, it's clear that the success of Robert Munsch is being told framed with how it was achieved through this publisher. --- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.