Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan James 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 keep. If you aren't happy with this decision, please discussion it on the article talk page and renominate if deemed necessary. Missvain (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Morgan James Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable publisher, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: Morgan James Publishing is a past client. I am not currently receiving compensation from them, nor do I expect to for my involvement in their page at this time.
 * KEEP (not delete) because this company is cited hundreds (maybe thousands) of times in Wikipedia as they are the publisher of many books by notable authors. Seems to me that this should carry some weight. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=50&profile=default&search="morgan+james+publishing" Most of these citations occurred prior to MJP having a Wikipedia page, thus those pages do not link to it.TriJenn (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've cited exactly 0 Wikipedia policies. Why do they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORP? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MJP has been written about extensively in Publisher's Weekly, the industry publication which covers publishers and books. This is the go-to source for this industry. There are many articles in PW about MJP.TriJenn (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment illustrates one or more of the classic "arguments not to make at AfD". For the "many articles in PW" to be persuasive, you need to show why the coverage is notable, not just "xyz corp published this book". Volume≠notability as described in WP:BIGNUMBER. Also, even if the works they published were themselves notable, notability is not inherited. — Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as a non-notable vanity press. Non-notable per my comments above. Vanity press per consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145. — Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I agree that this is a vanity press, but looking at it from the view of WP:CORP it has a certain notability. Being on the list of "fast-growing independent publishers" in Publisher's Weekly two years in a row is the kind of thing that we look for in articles about companies. The other articles are about business moves, which are typical of corporations. I'm not greatly impressed by the "Best Seller Lists" since we know that those can be manipulated, especially in the specific lists like "Advice, etc. paperback" which is what these are. However, one reference says that their best best-seller sold 60K copies, which is probably a fair amount. How much credit the vanity press should get for this is a mystery to me, which is why I'm pretty much discounting that. I do think that the article should say "vanity press", and I will add that although I suspect it will get reverted. Having other eyes on it for the next while will be helpful. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The only substantial coverage of the company I can find is in Publishing Weekly but as a specialist industry publication, I don't consider coverage in there to be sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. I've searched in Factiva to see if there has been any coverage in more mainstream sources but haven't been able to find anything but this but it's not possible to find what the original allegations were that lead to that piece. SmartSE (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The publisher of bultiple NYT best-sellers is a notable publisher in every sense of the word. This is afield where direct references in ourt usual sense are quite hard to find, and we're justified in using common sense.  DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG, and because it's better for the encyclopedia (and its users) to provide verifiable information about this prolific, and occasionally controversial  "subsidy" publisher.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - searching online does not show coverage by authoritative sources and I question notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (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.