Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FriesenPress


 * 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FriesenPress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable self publishing company (WP:GNG/WP:OR fail) i.e no sources. Looks a lot like an advertisement .... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. There seems to be a fair number of books published by this company, but the few reliable sources I find that mention FriesenPress state nothing more than them as the publisher. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable self-publisher.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this imprint is notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Merge-redirect It may inherit notability from its parent company Friesens, a major publisher in Canada. Just as the dozens of Amazon.com related articles inherit notability. If no Keep consensus I'd recommend merge and redirect to Friesens. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED, and with no independent sources I don't think anything should be merged. Comparing an obscure company to a 61 billion dollar multinational isn't the best comparison to make and I'm not convinced by the claims on the Friesens article either about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED. Have you read it? It's not so simple as "all inheritance is disallowed". I would not label Friesens an "obscure company" with 600 employees and 74 million in revenue. The Canadian government in Manitoba says they are "recognized world-wide" and "is Canada’s largest hardcover book printer". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a company with revenue 1000 times smaller than Amazon and with 150 times less employees, the comparison that it's sub divisions are notable because Amazon's are does not hold. On the claims by Manitoba gov; have you ever heard of a regional government that didn't make indigenous businesses or businesses who operate in the area sound great? "recognized world-wide", I've never heard of them and I don't buy it (their website says they are only in the North American market ...). Besides, "notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities"; everything a notable company does is not inherently notable, you need to demonstrate that independent of Friesens. The exceptions NOTINHERITED talks about are in relation to established guidelines surrounding books, films and music, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What does Amazon have to do with Friesens? I brought up Amazon as an example of how inheritance is used on Wikipedia, not that Friesens is comparable to Amazon which is a strawman argument. Companies are either notable or not and Friesens is notable. Apparently because you have never heard of Friesens, they must be "obscure"? Another logical fallacy for a multitude of reasons. It's also a logical fallacy to say that the Manitoba government is acting in bad faith - that's a very large claim that requires large evidence. NOTINHERITED extends beyond books, films and music, as the Amazon example shows, and there are other organizations. Finally, NOTINHERITED is an essay. We have freedom and leeway to make separate articles when it makes sense to do so. If it makes sense here or not is what we should be discussing, not a blind slavish discussion about the NOTINHERITED essay. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is that it must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and this certainly isn't the case here. The topic does not have that significant coverage. The Amazon subarticles are notable in their own right due to meeting GNG, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Trying to move back to the more specific: This is a division (their website description) of Friesens, who have an article and whose notability is not disputed here. The question is whether this division has notability in its own right, evidenced in reliable sources? In that respect I could find one article, on the overall self/vanity-publishing landscape, which I have now referenced into the article. That does indicate that this division say they have published 1200 works in 3-4 years; that could be regarded as a substantial number, but personally I still think notability requires a depth of articles about this division in its own right. AllyD (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note: FriesenPress don't publish material, they allow others to self publish (i.e they don't vet the material). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2013 (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.