Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneers press


 * 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Pioneers press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be non-notable. Searches failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability under either the GNG or NCORP. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hmm. This is a good comprehensive article on the publisher: The Pitch "Pioneers Press attempts a radical experiment in literature and living". The other things I'm finding are more trivial, such as "Pioneers' press conference open to public", Fast Company, "Third annual Zine Fest celebrates creativity of the little guy" and "Pioneers Press Distro Has Every Zine Your Heart Might Need". If one more article with significant coverage turns up, I think this could meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible you didn't look closely at your links - "Pioneers' press conference open to public" is about a baseball team called the Pioneers, and I don't see how you could have thought it was about this topic - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Whoops, yep, looks like I accidentally plunked the wrong link in. Amended above. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment terrible article, but if we can turn up a couple more RSes this might swing it - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm seeing a good amount of regional coverage with a simple google news search. Appears to pass WP:GNG to me.  Yes, it could use some editing and be careful to avoid WP:COI and WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify (let it go through AFC) Updated below. It is very clear that author has a COI here (off-wiki evidence, so I will not link anything) and they have not declared. The article is terrible and of borderline notability. It's a waste of volunteer time to work on this draft and encourage more WP:BOGOF editing. Let the creator work on the article, make it a better quality and let it go through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As nominator I could get behind draftifying the article as an outcome. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm unfamiliar with any policy or guideline that recommends deleting an article because cleaning it up would be a "waste of time" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT, but this isn't an egregious enough case to warrant that, in my opinion. I would support draftifying so that reliable third-party sources can be added and the article re-submitted via AfC. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although useful, WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. Thanks, though,--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure of the value of draftifying this article and sending it through AFC. We haven't uncovered enough sources to establish WP:GNG for this article, so it seems likely to be deleted. If it's not notable, which seems probable, it's better to just delete it now than to send it through AFC, only for another volunteer to have to deal with it then. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and only Draft if time has passed and someone is willing because I myself am only finding a few mere mentions, the links above are simply trivial themselves and are not the substance we would actually need for both a confirmed notable and improvable article. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, edit, and fix the title capitalization. In addition to the Pitch article noted above, there's a substantial article about this independent publisher in the Beyond the Book podcast series produced by the Copyright Clearance Center.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. If any volunteer editor is willing to create an article on this topic, all the power to them. But let's not encourage paid editors by keeping such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: do you have an opinion on the subject's notability? I would rework it myself if I thought it met WP:GNG. I'm not aware of a policy that says paid editing negates notability. I don't think paid editing is the issue here, though. I just don't think this publisher meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I thought of giving it time, but it seems the press is simply not notable at the moment. Coverage is entirely local and some of them are in sources which may not pass WP:AUD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Pioneers Press has received significant coverage in this article in The Pitch and this article from the Copyright Clearance Center. The article can be improved; Editing policy. I do not consider WP:TNT applicable to this article. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pioneers Press to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Analysis - These sources cannot be considered or taken seriously as independent and significant as the first source is actually PR advertising what the company is and what the company services are, the "article" goes to end with a biography of the businessperson herself (naturally containing only information she would say herself).... Next, the company is only mentioned between weaving in and out times when the article is actually focused about a family's story of life instead, therefore it cannot be considered as focused substance for notability. As the Delete comments have shown, there is enough shoeing there is not what is needed for both substance and a convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources
 * "Beyondthebook" Podcast This is an interview of the founder, so doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND.
 * Pitch "Free weekly" local newspaper. Doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is sufficient significant non-interview coverage in the first source: "Remarkably, though, the stock that flourishes best on the Hard Fifty are books and do-it-yourself style “zines.” Pioneers Press, headquartered there, is a combined publishing house and small press distributor. The publisher’s catalog focuses on issues in survival and sustainability on the farm and in the city, as well as health, gender and sexuality. Since its launch in 2012, Pioneers Press has brought out titles that have made the bestseller lists of independent bookstores around the world, including Powell’s Books’ number one bestselling small press title for the last three consecutive years, The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Fighting the Big Motherfuckin’ Sad. In 2015, Entropy Magazine named Pioneers Press as one of the best small presses in the country." This Copyright Clearance Center source meets WP:AUD, which says, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". Not every source needs to meet WP:AUD so it is fine that the reliable but local source Pitch does not meet WP:AUD. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of "non-interview" coverage is 3 sentences. That is not "indepth coverage" in any way. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider the five non-interview sentences in the Copyright Clearance Center article and the extensive coverage in The Pitch sufficient to establish notability per Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a company and WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be satified here which requires in-depth coverage. That is is not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2016 (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.