Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fig Tree Books


 * 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   hard draft. Consensus is clearly against keeping, but as to whether it should be hard-deleted or draftspaced, it's a bit less clear. There's not consensus against draft spacing, but given the rationales given behind both deleting and draftspacing/keep, I'm guessing there should probably be clear consensus before moving it back into to the mainspace. slakr \ talk / 07:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Fig Tree Books

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Publishing company doesn't actually exist yet, WP:TOOSOON. Copyright issues, some text lifted directly from first reference. Vrac (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom; presently there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete as the user who accepted it on AfC. I did my best to carefully review the coverage of the source before accepting it. WP:TOOSOON includes guidelines on exactly two topic areas: actors/actresses and films; this topic falls under neither. I noticed the copyright violations you're talking about before I accepted the article; they can be trivially fixed, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic of the article recieved coverage in two periodicals; I'm not sure what you're talking about with "significant coverage". The subject of the article is perfectly notable; the article shouldn't be deleted. APerson (talk!) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: From WP:TOOSOON: "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon."  The actors and films sections are just examples.  I would argue that a publishing house that has not published anything, and by their own admission will not publish anything until the spring of 2015, fits the definition of a topic that is too soon to merit an article in an encyclopedia.Vrac (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The key is coverage, not whether it has published anything as of yet. Things that are in the offing and have received GNG coverage are notable.  Things that are already in operation and have not received GNG coverage are not. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just changed my vote to "Delete" as I now see that a stronger notability standard is needed for companies that have yet to do anything besides produce a few press releases. APerson (talk!) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep if copyvio is fixed. While AfD is not for cleanup, we simply cannot accept copyright violations and hope someone fixes it eventually.  They must be fixed on sight, or flagged for deletion, and  shouldn't have accepted this with a copyreight violation.  That said, the company appears to be notable as it has already attracted significant reliable source coverage.  TOOSOON exists to allow people to say something isn't notable yet in a polite way.  It does not exist to override notability guidelines when a fledgling entity is actually notable (i.e. covered in depth by RS), as is the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Return to draftspace. So far the publisher has not released anything and has not been the focus of enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to where it'd pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Two sources is NOT enough to show notability in this instance and I fail to see where any other places has really given this fledgling company enough to where it'd pass WP:CORP. All we have so far are two news releases about the company announcing that it will release books next year. Even if we discard WP:TOOSOON as something that can only apply to one small portion of pages on Wikipedia (something that I think is generally unwise because the policy can and has been used in a wide variety of AfDs, from people to objects to concepts) and ignore that the page was written in a very promotional (and likely copyvio) manner, the company would still fail notability guidelines for businesses. This should never have left AfC space. Two sources is not significant and nothing in the sources suggests that the company is so overwhelmingly notable (ie, that they've received a major award or recognition that would keep on that basis alone) that it merits an article in the here and now. On a side note, if you do notice that an article has a copyright violation while it's at AfC and you want to accept the article, fix it before submitting it to the mainspace. You shouldn't decline it on that basis alone- especially if it is easily fixed, but last month Fuhghettaboutit posted a mass letter to the usertalk pages of various AfC editors that detailed what we should do with articles that have copyright violations because there are so many that are getting submitted to the mainspace without people doing anything. You can see the message at my talk page. At no point does he state that you should accept AfC submissions that have copyright violations without fixing or removing the copyvio. Just shoving it into the mainspace and assuming that someone else will fix it is not the right way to address copyright violations. I can't stress it enough- that does not fix the legal issues that arise with copyright violations and promotional articles on Wikipedia and even worse... it makes us part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you don't want to fix the copyvio or otherwise address the issue, don't accept or otherwise touch the AfC submission. But that's just sort of a rant-y aside to the bottom line: this company does not pass notability guidelines yet. Will they? Maybe, but two sources that announce the company launching are not enough to assert notability per WP:CORP. The company exists, but existing does not automatically grant notability and again, two sources just simply isn't enough in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, see for example: "5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." & WP:NOTADVERTISING, see for example: "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations...Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts, with respect. It's a bit more than a product announcement -- as a company is being launched, not a product. And it need not be so "short" -- the articles have more information that can be used to lengthen it. And there is not topic to merge it to (unlike what would be the case if it were a product announcement). And I don't think this is what is meant by "speculation and rumor". Plus, it is no more advertising than any other company description. Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both articles are about 3 paragraphs long (4 for the LJ, if you count the one sentence at the end) and both pretty much say the same thing: the company is going to start up next year, so I think that this is what IZAK meant by a routine product announcement. Both are kind of brief and look like they were roughly based on the same press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even looking only at those two refs, I just doubled (or tripled?) it. It's now not nearly as "short". Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "It will begin releasing...is seeking to publish...books that it will publish...intends ultimately to publish". Articles based on such language strike me as too soon, what if it never happens?  Coverage is too thin to override the obvious fact that the company has done nothing.  If a future company can get secondary coverage of their press releases, does that really make them notable?  Vrac (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand notability guidelines. Advice such as CRYSTAL exist to caution against stating future events as fact.  They do not exist to state all "future things" are automatically non-notable.  A company is notable (or not) for the same reason as anythign else - it has (or hasn't) attracted reliable source coverage.  We don't judge notability by importance ("they haven't done anything yet") but rather by notedness ("independent reliable sources choice to write about this").  If a "future company" gets indepth, reliable source coverage (as has happened here), then yes they are notable by the Wikipedia definition, which has nothing to do with importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Indepth [sic]"? That is a generous assessment.  GNG says a topic is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" if it has "significant coverage" (significant is debatable in this case).  Paraphrasing GNG, "presumed" is not a guarantee that a subject should be included, particularly if it violates WP:ISNOT.  In this case that would be WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, which states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified..." Vrac (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The founding of a company is not a product announcement. There is no more general article where it can be covered (unlike a product, which can be, and usually is, covered on the company page.  And I stand by my assessment that the coverage here is sufficiently in depth (a synonym of "significant") to meet the guidelines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me break, this article is the same as a product announcement, the product being publishing. It's not a question of whether there is a more general article where it can be covered, the question is should it be covered at all.  I don't think WP:GNG was intended to override WP:COMMON.  Step back for a second and ask yourself:  would the Encyclopedia Britannica have an entry for a publishing company that hasn't published anything, and whose only claim to fame are announcement coverage in two small articles?  Okay so Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and the barrier to entry is lower, but that is scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Thanks for pointing out that in-depth is a synonym of significant by the way, I didn't know that. Vrac (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, not-yet-released products are routinely covered at the parent company articles, so "can this be covered sufficiently in a more broad article" is indeed a valid criteria when deciding to create or not create a product article. There is a fundamental difference between a product and a company, which does not allow that consideration on a company article.  The GNG is our notability standard, and it allows objectivity.  When we start to make "common sense" judgements, we move away from an objective standard for (what I see as) no real reason.  As to The Encyclopedia Britannic, 90% of what we cover would never be covered there.  Fortunately, we aren't running low on paper to continue to cover more (minorly) notable topics. We're goign to have to just agree to disagree about whether this company meets the minimum notability bar or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Guidelines like WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON are attempts to interject common sense for those cases where "objective standards" are applied to excess. The real reason to move away from them in this case doesn't seem too hard to understand:  it's an article on a thing that may or may not exist in the future; and hardly anyone is writing about it. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL are for just such cases.  Vrac (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thad on the issue of "crystal ball" and the essay "toosoon". The only question I am pondering, as I have not yet !voted, is GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with ThaddeusB's views on the "crystal ball" argument and the essay "toosoon". Cunard (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there has been some discussion on crystal ball not specifically saying that it can apply to existing topics (in this case a company), I've requested that this be added on the WP:NOT talk page. My reason for including toosoon and crystal to articles is that in many cases a topic can exist but it would still fail notability guidelines, meaning that having an article is premature at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Return to draft space per Tokyogirl79. We have no idea if this publisher will be notable until it at least exists. Even then, I wouldn't jump back in with the first thing published. Give it some time. What's the hurry? LaMona (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The publisher already exists. A company does not come into existence when it releases it's first product, but rather some time before that. In the rare case a business attracts interest before it releases a product, it certainly can be notable before the product comes out.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the 3 sources in the article might be considered reliable sources in some contexts, but I don't really consider them to be reliable in this context, the articles are only short blurbs, or mainly about another topic.
 * Also the main author has, in a very general way, declared that he is a paid editor, but not given any of the specifics required by the terms of use (if he has indeed been paid for this article). I've asked him on his talk page if he has been paid for this article.  At best we should wait for his response.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete A company can be notable before it has actually produced anything, but that is very unusual, and would require very much stronger references. I see no point in moving to draft space--it will reach the 6 month expiration long before it is likely to be notable unless its first books are a spectacular success, in which case the article will need a different emphasis entirely, and should be started over.  DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete In substance, the too soon/crystal arguments make general sense here, and delete per portions of notadirectory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Return to draftspace I created this article as a favor to a friend, a manager at Goldberg MacDuffie. I suggested strongly that they should wait until the case could be better made for notabilty, but there was great eagerness at the time. I am not surprised that it was slated for deletion, but believe that the company may be considered notable down the road, once their releases begin. Firstmilast (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, given that Wikipedia is not a place to publish rumours and product announcements, and that it's simply too soon for the company to have an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is neither a rumor nor a product announcement. Epeefleche (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.     </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fig Tree Books to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * You've added one reference - from the blog "Lilith"; adding non-reliable sources to mentions-in-passing doesn't addup to a single reliable source. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to Frederic D. Price (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19: "The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect. A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject. Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this. In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect." Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Frederic D. Price is the founder and CEO of Fig Tree Books. I created an article about him, merging some of the information in Fig Tree Books into his article. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this. The Price article has the same problem - he isn't notable. Adding in a non-notable publisher-to-be doesn't make either topic notable.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:29, 21 December 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.