Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenhaven 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Greenhaven Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I nominate this page for deletion because it has not been supported with reliable sources since 2007, and all sources now are WP:SELFPUB or failed verification. Nothing external supports it except a FreeLibrary.com page with title only (no text). In its current state, with current magniflorious text, the page stands as a false attestation of notability. If no notability has been found in past 9 years (possibly more), it is time to delete it. I put a nomination for deletion on the page, but it was reverted by, with only the note: "Deprod, for cause". ScrapIronIV did not improve the page to justify its existence.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NEXIST Greenhaven Press is a publisher of secondary and college curriculum books, and is a part of the Gale group that was acquired by Cengage Learning in 2007. Greenhaven Press still has an official website.  Barnes&Noble website lists 119 titles they sell from Greenhaven Press.  Amazon sells literally hundreds of titles from Greenhaven Press. This is a legitimate educational publisher. — Maile  (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator should read WP:BEFORE. Publishers of school textbooks are not self published. There is no requirement for an editor to improve or justify the existence of an article in order to deprod, particularly such an obvious keep. It is incumbent upon the nominator to actually look for sources before nomination. This publisher has "5,417 works / 823 ebooks published between 1821 & 2014" per Openlibrary.org - which is found without even opening a single article in a Google search.  Scr ★ pIron IV 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that the company is not nominated for deletion -- only the article, which at this time meets none of the standards for inclusion in the Encyclopedia. Right now it has no support. Note: a company's statements about itself on its own web page are WP:SELFPUB regardless of the nature of its products. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NEXIST as suggested by — Maile recommended above. After you do, I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination for the sake of your credibility.  Scr ★ pIron IV 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Gale group?  Makes it intrinsically notable as an imprint thereof. Numerous books published. Named as publisher in over one hundred Wikipedia articles.    The unfortunate misuse of the SPS dictum is troubling - there is no reason to believe any claims are "unduly self-serving" here at all.  By the way, wondrous superfluity of adjectives as a "causa deletionis" does not impress most editors here who have read and opined on hundreds of AfDs as a rule. Collect (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the page title before commenting, please. It often enhances relevance. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE In the alternative: Make a redirect to the Gale Group instead. Greenhaven does not exist as a separate entity. It is only an imprint, not an entity or separate existence.  It is like having separate pages for Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens.  The page right right now is shell with no support.  If you want to tell the separate history of Greenhaven before it was gobbled, that might justify a separate page.  But it has no history now -- it is just a tombstone ad. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, the person nominating any article for deletion does not also !vote as well.  Many publisher imprints have separate articles as they generally have distinct histories, frequently under three or more distinct owners.  In order to accommodate them all, we could have one monster publisher article, but practice here has been to have articles for each imprint, rather than having every publisher which has held that imprint being combined into one single article  with every imprint belonging to any overlapping publisher being included.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On what authority are you asserting that Greenhaven has overlapping ownership? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gale has at least the following imprints - Blackbirch, Charles Scribner's Sons,  Christian Large Print, Five Star,  Graham & Whiteside,  Greenhaven ·and more than a dozen more.  It purchased Greenhaven in 2000, which means Greenhaven had different ownership for thirty years.  Thompson Publishing which owns a number of imprints not contained in Gale, including many publications about government regulations etc.  purchased Gale in 1985, and has an interesting history in its own.  Thomson sold Thomson Learning (including Gale) in 2007, which is now Cengage Learning. In short - a veritable arachnophile's delight in structure. With likely far more than one hundred Wikipedia articles related to its associated firms (far more than the bare list used for Gale alone).  Clearer? Collect (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should spend your time editing the article with all your newfound knowledge instead of stalking me. That would be the WP way. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh?  I stalk no one ... if you look at my AfD count, it is quite notable, indeed  (roughly 644 - of which I !voted keep about 45%, delete about 45%, and 10% other - of the ones I !voted "keep" on, about 80% were kept, of my Delete !votes, about 70% were deleted - "no consensus" defaults to "keep").  Cheers - but a person with 644 AfDs in his past is unlikely to "stalk" anyone there for a single AfD. Collect (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable publisher with many works. As noted already, the nominator does not get a !vote and should strike it or changes to a Comment. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2016 (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.