Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Book Collective


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Open Book Collective

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries,  and England.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
 * https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/
 * https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840
 * Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?
 * Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?
 * As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (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.