Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Juliette Han (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PediaPress is written without a NPOV. It is written out of encyclopedic format. I currently suggest deletion or a full rewrite with non-associated writers. -Kylie Take a look &#124; What have I done ? &#124; Talk to me 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Kylie Take a look &#124; What have I doneBlue question mark (italic).svg ? &#124; Talk to me  14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified on the Wikipedia-Books Wikiproject talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for all the reasons given in the previous AfD and which are not addressed in this one. Specific issues with the current content should be addressed on the article talk page, not here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons in the last one included that it should be retained because "we shouldn't bite the hand that feeds us" and a WMF-designated idea of notability. Both of those were unsuitable at best, and reprehensible at worst. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, this organisation fails GNG and WP:NCORP, the few secondary sources are nothing more than passing mentions. The article is also written like an advertisement. Corporate Spam does not become a-okay just because you like the company that is being advertised. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete Pending - I don't believe the organisation meets NCORP, though it might scrape through GNG. I can't get access to some of the sources, so it's a little tricky to determine. As I noted above, I'm firmly against any reasoning to retain on such concerning IAR thoughts. However, with regard to the actual nomination reason, I don't believe the format, or NPOV-level, is so bad as to require a deletion/full re-write on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, I'd read most of the ones below, and a number were ruled out for not meeting Sig Cov once avalanches of quotes were removed. However, I'd missed the "The Impact of Print-On-Demand on Academic Books" source, and I want to redo my BEFORE check. If it's just that, this would now be a weak delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I used to work for this company, so I won't be taking a stance either way, but there's a bit of WP:BEFORE here... If you're looking to satisfy GNG, things like Etc, should be reviewed. There's a lot more out there too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Verge
 * CNN
 * The Impact of Print-On-Demand on Academic Books
 * / /
 * 
 * Stop--there is no deletion rationale. One cannot argue that this is irredeemably promotional, and once upon a time it was a stubby but acceptable article. user:KylieInTheSkylie, for the life of me I can't figure out your signature (can you keep it simple?), but I do know that you need to read up on what these deletion discussions are about. If the content is notable by our standards and the references are good, the article stays. You can rewrite it all you like. So, in case stop wasn't clear: keep. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern about my signature, although that doesn't happen to be the topic of this page. Addressing your concern about the article not being irredeemably promotional, according to the article's talk page it has been promotional since at least 2012 so surely people have noticed this and would've tried to make it conform to WP:NPOV. After looking at the article again, I'd say it could be notable. The whole reason I also gave the suggestion to nuke it is for in the event that it is decided as notable. So, whether you think it should be nuked is your consideration if it does become a option. -Kylie Take a look &#124; What have I done &#124; Talk to me  21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * user:KylieInTheSkylie, way to sidetrack. Your signature is still weird, and you still don't have a deletion rationale other than "someone in 2012 said it's promotional". I am not sure why you feel the need to wikilink "nuke"--nothing is going to be nuked: the editor who created this created 184 articles. Do you want those all to be deleted? "Nuke" means mass deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I'm surprised you're not aware that while that's the "formal" meaning of Nuke on Wikipedia, in AfD it is often used as a term for wiping and recommencing an article as the content is completely unsuitable. I don't actually think that applies here, "regular" cleanup would suffice. I also find your "stop" phrasing rather odd, as yes the nom didn't have a legitimate nomination reason but Wombat's delete !vote would be sufficient to prohibit any withdrawal. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone links nuke, it's particular. "Stop" is "stop in the name of love", because this nomination, given the previous outcome and the actual sourcing, means this will not gain consensus to delete. "Stop" does not mean "withdrawal mandatory" or whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything about this article is unduly promotional, why has none of the plaintiffs edited it back over the years? I have tried to do a little of that from time to time, but I am not familiar enough with the dividing line to do more. I for one would welcome some more knowledgeable edits in that direction. But there's nothing that cannot remain in the article history, nuking in whatever shape or form is a gross overreaction. (and I agree with Drmies that linking to Nuke is equivalent to expressing the meaning defined on the linked page, it is quite inappropriate to this discussion and, worse, could mislead less inexperienced editors.) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right about the linking giving a specific meaning - apologies on my end for that, I'd missed the original link. Nosebagbear (talk)

I'm sorry about that issue, I was not aware of the implications of linking the page. -Kylie Take a look &#124; What have I done &#124; Talk to me 18:23, 24 May 2020 (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.