Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress (3rd 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

PediaPress
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NORG. The only sources I could easily find that might satisfy SIRS were sources covering PediaPress' gimmick to print the entirety of Wikipedia which on closer inspection are just rewritting a blog post. In response to the previous nominations, the notability criteria for companies has changed since 2009 as it's no longer adequate to just satisfy GNG and the previous AfD a little over a year ago's rationale was the article wasn't NPOV enough. Additionally, the sources linked in the last AfD are mostly trivial and do not satisfy WP:SIRS. The ones that aren't trivial are the rewritten blog posts I mentioned above. Finally the IAR rationale that we should have this article because of the Wikipedia Books feature is no longer applicable as Wikipedia Books are deprecated and are no longer considered "user facing". Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I had a conflict of interest (I worked with PediaPress for about a year), I'll recuse myself. But I will point out that PC Welt, h-online, sys-con, The Bookseller, ... (and those below) are all independent sources (including academic studies) that have covered the company beyond press releases and meet WP:SIRS. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See also &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The Verge
 * CNN
 * The Impact of Print-On-Demand on Academic Books
 * / /
 * 
 * Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previous AfDs. Article needs a little clean-up by removing anything promotional if ever. Other than that, it is still good enough to pass WP:GNG per reasons indicated in the previous AfDs and reliable sources indicated by Headbomb. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Until recently, the very publicly promulgated agreement between PediaPress and our WMF, and the related book functionality we plastered all over our Wikipedia, made it essential to have this article. The Pedia Press website home page still carries a note that "PediaPress established a long term partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation." However if you follow their link to the WMF's own wiki announcement of the deal, that announcement has been deleted and a search on it for "PediaPress" turns up nothing. Similarly, for their part PediaPress subsequently removed their own facility to save out books in PDF format - now they only offer pay-for print editions. We are now progressively removing book features and killing off the whole initiative. All this has substantially happened since the last two AfDs, so this third one is very timely in revisiting why we might want this article in our main namespace. Is its historic notability as a failed initiative still worth preserving? I have no strong opinion any more as there is nothing left to support, but we can no longer justify it on the basis of anything current. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: One of the arguments used to support the deletion is that the Wikipedia features that are connected to PediaPress are depreciated (Wikipedia Books). While these features may be depreciated, they are still functional, accessible to users, and still in use. I can create a Wikipedia book today. Not to mention the number of already created Wikipedia books in Wikipedia. The PediaPress article is helpful to people who want to better understand Wikipedia books. It would make more sense to remove the PediaPress article AFTER 1. The Wikipedia book creation function is removed. AND 2. Previously created Wikipedia books are deleted. Until then, I believe that the PediaPress article is useful. --HugoHelp (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep In-house Wikipedia issues should be ignored as navel gazing. The community has twice decided that this topic is notable. The sources that Headbomb has identified are more than adequate to show that. Recent changes to the Wikipedia Books feature are irrelevant because notability is not temporary. This topic would be notable even if the business closes tomorrow. We have plenty of articles about notable businesses that no longer exist. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although I can see The Guardian and LATimes reports, it looks like the premise is based on a single gimmick. In any case the article needs to be heavily pruned. I'm not entirely convinced though that it needs to be deleted so I'm going with a weak keep, and wouldn't mind which way the wind blows in the end. That's my 2 cents on this PediaGate. JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2021 (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.