Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McFarland & Company


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

McFarland & Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any indication of notability. All the sources are either self-published or entirely local. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's your evidence that their books are self-published? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. No indication of notability?  Unless I have them confused with another similarly-named book publisher, they're actually fairly prominent.  If I can remember, I'll try to dig up references later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a legitimate company going back decades. A simple look at their website shows the serious nature of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinejarvis (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because an organization says that it is a leading publisher doesn't mean that it is a leading publisher. WP:CORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Where is that significant coverage? The company's website is not "significant coverage," or otherwise coretheapple.com could proclaim me as "the world's greatest living Wikipedian" and up goes the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - reputable publisher with an extensive backlist. See this description from the North Carolina Sports Literature newsletter (a university publication) for a description of their operation. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the above, a 2012 Seattle Times article calls McFarland "a well-regarded source of books on baseball and chess". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the three current sources (not including the company website, which doesn't count towards WP:CORP): the UNC ref (which is, frankly, fawning), the Mountain Times (press releases) and the Seattle Times article, the only RS in the lot. WP:VRS requires more than one.  Mini  apolis  01:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy simply requires a source to be reliable, it doesn't limit the opinions of the source to those in the middle of the road. A "fawning" article from a reliable source is still a citation from a reliable source, and cannot be discounted with a wave of the hand.  Given that, there have been two citations from reliable sources presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree; WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. FWIW, I was ready to !vote "keep" until I realized that I couldn't, based on WP:VRS. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, context matters, but the "context" is that it is a reliable source, the "fawning" review is not "context", it's content. Content is admissiable or not depending on the context it appears it, so the same kind of review coming from a non-reliable source (the context) would not be usable, while coming from a reliable source, it is.  The content does not invalidate the context, unless there's evidence that the RS is simply re-printing a press release.  We allow reliable sources to like things, just as we allow them to dislike and criticize them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

as *Keep significant publisher. In many subjects they are not a particularly high quality publisher, but some of their books are widely accepted, and present in hundreds of libraries. The GNG is pretty hopeless in either direction for publishers, and common snese is a better guide.  DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note This page was nominated as a result of WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, which was semi-unrelated to this page itself. Whether this is a POINTy nomination or not remains to be seen.  Konveyor   Belt  02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A publishing company with 50 employees is not small. They do have an extensive catalog, and at least their Beowulf and Film is, from personal observation, a pretty decent book on a decent academic level. If I choose to review the book I'll add the link. For now I will give them the benefit of the doubt: keep. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - here's the problem: McFarland has some books in their stable that are valid, useful as RS's, and discussed in fine places everywhere. They also have a whackload of almost POD-type drivel that are only discussed at the author's family gatherings.  So, the problem is that this article barely talks about that side of their business, which means that the casual observer would assume that if the source is from McFarland, it must be good, right?  With balance, this could be an acceptable article.  In its current state, it's near-puffery.  ES  &#38;L  12:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Publishes also decent academic journals. If they also publish "POD-type drivel", there should be sources about that and it should be added to the article (actually adding to the notability...) --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right--that's the funny thing, that joints like Lulu are more (easily) notable by our standards than real, legitimate companies. I still want to see evidence of PoD drivel. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I went looking for such evidence and could not find it -- which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. (It could mean that the legit publishing industry is reluctant to talk about that part of their business.) I did find a couple of writer's blogs which talked about having their first book self-published and their second book published by McFarland and what a big step up that was.  McFarland may indeed inhabit an in-between place: not self-publishing, but not exactly a trade publisher either.  Their website emphasizes that their niche is largely  academic books and library sales, and they do charge authors for the preparation of the manuscript, but they are adamant that they do not charge for publication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the company's website: "It does not cost anything to publish with McFarland. McFarland has not ever and will not ever take any payment or subvention from authors. You bear only the expenses of providing a complete manuscript (including any necessary illustrations and permissions). McFarland does not offer advances–the economic constraints of scholarly publishing make this impossible. We pay a good royalty." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Credo, "McFarland... is a leading independent publisher of academic and nonfiction books... especially known for covering popular topics in a serious and scholarly fashion, and for going to great lengths to manufacture their books to meet high library standards." McFarland is a publisher that knocks out small print runs of niche, scholarly works aimed almost solely at libraries (much like the university presses) with - often - 3-figure price tags. As BMK says above, this isn't a publisher that trumpets about itself very much: it knows its product and it knows its market, and it has successfully brought the two together for the last 35 years. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Staying with Credo Reference, just to add that I stumbled across this from them: "Credo General Reference, a core resource serving the research needs of millions of students and other library users will be enriched by the addition of top-quality content from McFarland. Chosen for their academic value and editorial excellence, these comprehensive reference titles provide compelling, relevant coverage on contemporary and historical topics... 'McFarland is an outstanding publisher with a significant number of award-winning reference titles,' commented John Dove, Credo Reference President." Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. News articles such as this and this are examples of non-trivial, third-party coverage and attest to the company's productivity as a publisher.  Super Mario  Man  21:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well established academic publisher of books and journals. I'm puzzled by the nomination, this is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you wanna read that as a Keep advisement based upon our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense), that's fine with me. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd been waiting for the nominator to provide some evidence of his claims, but he has not done so, despite repeating (and, indeed, hardening) his position on the related AN/I discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:58, 9 December 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.