Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newspaper Licensing Ireland


 * 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. Neıl ☎  11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Licensing Ireland

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete google search shows 295 hits, but none of them prove notability. Fails WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Keep The article should be fixed, not deleted. Let's put the trigger fingers away - WP:INSPECTOR Bardcom (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now – this ghit seems to indicate the start of some notability, certainly. The entry on Eoin Purcell's blog is disqualified for being a blog, although the blog in question seems reasonably reputable and read. The organisation certainly seems to be of some importance, and while that doesn't automatically imply notability, it suggests it. Should definitely be given some time, and a chance to see if anyone is interested enough to fix up the article and make it look like a wikipedia article. SamBC(talk) 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent Thoughts After further investigation, it could be argued that this article promotes a website set up for the sole purpose of selling a product or service. Even though the organization itself is not for profit, it has been set up on behalf of the newspapers that it represents and collects money for.  WP:EL  But it is still a notable organization within Ireland, and I still say the article should be fixed and kept. Bardcom (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Several of the Google searchs provide secondary sources, therefore it passes WP:N. I've editted the article and included more information. Please re-review the article. Bardcom (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: An interesting thought is that, since this organization provides a service to and does business with newspapers on a business-to-business basis, would newspaper articles about the subject be considered independent? I concur that there appears to be some possible notability, but it's fuzzy at best. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to admit that crossed my mind last night as well, but as all the major national and, from what I can see from the website, most of the regional papers in Ireland use them as a clearing house for copyright "rights", making them the only game in town (so to speak), there isn't really a need for non-neutral coverage. Unfortunately, finding sources at all is a problem here.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 00:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking a section there. I misread something. Correcting myself.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably notable. Better sourcing should be possible through trade publications. DGG (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but citations from reliable sources would need to be found soon. Leaving aside notabilty in the strict sense of the word for a moment, from an "importance" point of view, the subject is relevant within the context of the application of copyright in Ireland. The NLI handles copyright licenses for all the national papers and many of the regional papers. (I corrected myself above when I said most; from what I saw, it could well be most, but that would be original research on my part.) As DGG points out, there should be reliable sources to be found in trade journals; as for articles in newspapers, citing them for matters of fact - for example, the date of establishment - but not opinion, should be acceptable. I can find references to articles on the establishment of the body in other sources, but the articles themselves aren't online. In passing, I think there might be a couple of point of view issues in the article as it stands that should be addressed within the article: "Copyright is a cornerstone of the publishing world." does sound a bit like a press release.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (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.