Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Pale Publications


 * 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   no consensus. Possible indications of notability were referenced in the discussion, but there was no meeting of the minds on the subjects. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the Pale Publications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. Worst case scenario is a merge and redirect to a list of Irish publishers or a history of Irish literature or something like that. James500 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment User:James500, where does it meet WP:GNG? The article has one source with a small mention of the publishers - there is no significanyt mention in reliable sources (plural) as yet. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. The implication is that one sufficiently high quality source will suffice. I wouldn't consider that passage to be a small mention either. James500 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think that publishers of non fiction books fall into the class of things that are more likely to be objectively worthy of notice on the basis of their actual importance, regardless of the amount of attention they have received from sources. James500 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of stuff in GScholar. I found a book review, so we now have multiple sources. There is probably a lot more. James500 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one of the books they published, "Bear in Mind these Dead", by Sutton, has received multiple reviews in periodicals: . And GScholar says it has been cited more than a hundred times. Publication of a notable book automatically makes the publisher notable in of itself. So I think their notability can no longer be questioned. James500 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The company is often referred to as "Beyond the Pale" rather "Beyond the Pale Publications". I suggest actually searching for the titles of their books, or employing search terms like "beyond the pale+belfast". I'm getting the impression that there is actually a stack of reviews in JSTOR alone, particularly in Books Ireland in a regular feature called "First Flush". James500 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) [Book reviews are coverage of the publisher because critical appraisal of a book is critical appraisal of those responsible for it, including the publisher]. James500 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, and of course GNG (no in depth coverage). We are not yellow pages, and book publishers are not notable by default. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but ... how about a redirect to Literature of Northern Ireland for the time being. Or perhaps there is a better target. This topic has been included at reasonable length in a history of Irish literature published by Oxford University Press, so there a strong case for fitting it in somewhere. James500 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think I should point out that it is absurd to compare a reference book from OUP with the yellow pages. James500 (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (chinwag)  @ 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - for a list of some of the books by the publisher, this Open Library search on publisher pulls up quite a few titles. Would a list of titles be appropriate for the article? LaMona (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a bibliography would be perfectly appropriate, especially if the books have been reviewed (meaning that we can say something substantial about them) which seems to be the case. The fact that this publisher seems to have been focused on a particular aspect of the politics of Northern Ireland probably increases the utility of such a list. We already have lots of articles which are bibliographies. James500 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC) [If they have received enough book reviews etc, their books will satisfy LISTN]. James500 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (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.