Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black & White Publishing


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Black & White Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. This article has been around for fourteen years, and I don't understand why it hasn't previously been looked at for deletion. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, I pondered this one as it isn't unusual for book publishers to have a credible wikipedia article, though I take the point in this case that it's perhaps a much lesser known publisher (300-ish printed books is not a significant amount). It's also fair to say that a notable book doesn't translate to equal notability for the publisher. I can't find any meaningful source material about them that can assert notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The multiple, reliable, secondary sources are largely about the publications rather than the publisher per se but their abundance makes me inclined to view them as significant. There are are also multiple mentions of the award-winning status of their Itchy Coo imprint and of its cultural significance by the Scots Language Centre. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, multiple notable mentions of the publisher are to be had, particularly regarding Itchy Coo. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just wonder if the article itself qualifies as being notable just because some of the published books may be. Notability doesn't automatically extend to the publisher. My vote was weak as I didn't feel strongly enough that it's clear-cut, but I also don't see sufficient evidence of publisher notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: The references added by since this AfD began indicate a breadth of attention for the activities of this publisher and their main imprint, which I think is enough for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having conducted a WP:BEFORE I did see mentions of this publisher, which have been added into the article by Mutt Lunker, but I really don't think they're thorough enough despite being abundant, as you say. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes NCORP. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could elaborate. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As would I., can you link to any two/three references that meet the criteria for establishing notability below so we can see? Thanks.  HighKing++ 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Niceguylucky has since been blocked for sock-puppetry and the AfD contributions from their socks have been struck. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete As per NCORP, what is required is an in-depth significant reference *about the company* as per WP:CORPDEPTH that includes "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria as none provide in-depth "Independent Content" discussing either Black & White Publishing nor Itchy Coo. Topic fail NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I believe that the additional coverage of the subject that I have appended to the article since the discussions above further strengthen the case for its fulfilment of GNG, in particular those relating to the publisher's significant and premier role in the provision of Scots language educational materials and in their extensive and leading impetus behind changes to attitudes regarding the teaching of the tongue, supported by numerous sources including, compellingly, by the reports of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Government ministerial working group. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The references you have added are mostly talking about the fact that a specific, well-known book has been translated into the Scots language and not actually about Itchy Coo or Black & White, see, , , with more examples that can be seen in the article. As for the Scottish Arts Council, the source only mentions Black & White once, and it only says it is in a "partnership" with Itchy Coo, the subject of the piece in the source. Also, some of the sources don't even mention Black & White, see , . Finally, how can we judge the notability of winning an award like this, especially when Scots is the second most popular language in Scotland. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The most fundamental thing you can cover regarding a publisher of books is its books.
 * Itchy Coo is an imprint of Black & White. If a source covers Itchy Coo, it covers Black & White.
 * I'm struggling to understand what material you would regard as pertinent about a publisher if its books and its imprints are not. What else do publishers do of note?
 * I'm not sure I understand your final question but even if you are saying awards count for less for minority languages, that is immaterial in relation to the notability criteria. If even a worthless award gets significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, its worthlessness is neither here nor there re notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (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.