Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Publishing


 * 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 default to status quo. Jayron  32  02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Plan 9 Publishing

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can find no evidence that this organisation has received any coverage from independent reliable sources. Per Verifiability "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". From a Google search the only independent coverage I can find is from wikis, Wikipedia mirrors and other sources which could not be considered to be reliable. A Google News search turns up a blog and a user editable website. Beyond trivial mentions the general notability guideline states that a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" in order to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The specific guideline for companies also states "organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". So far I cannot find even trivial coverage (from independent reliable sources) - the article is dependent on original research and the official website of the company which hasn't been updated in 18 months. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - with heavy heart, for failure to meet WP:CORP...I like the 'Bastard Operator From Hell. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Guest9999 does not appear to be very good at searching for references and finds his own lack of skill an excuse to delete articles. Plan 9 is/was an influential small independent publisher that boosted the comics industry at a pivotal time in webcomics development. Note for instance that Pete Abrams, author of Sluggy Freelance, which Plan 9 initially published, is credited as being the first webcomics artist able to make a living off his comic. Guest9999 is moving too quickly with calls for deletion right now in this topic area.  All such AfDs should be considered most carefully. Tags for lack of citation should be applied before a call for deletion.  Netmouse (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any sources? Guest9999 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MIT The Tech book review of Sluggy Freelance; ComixTalk Interview with Plan 9's David Allen; Baen Publishing piece by Pete Abrams and John Ringo ; Witty World International Cartoon center Book review of Ozy and Millie "the major book publisher of collections of those strips is Plan Nine Publishing"; Slashdot - Bastard Operator from Hell II review "Plan Nine Publishing did a great job of laying out this book"; David Allen Interview in the Fall 2004 Journal of the Lincoln Heights Literary Society and of course every single amazon.com page for one of the paperbacks published by Plan 9; and the incomplete but helpful Books by ISBN page. There's a few. Took me longer to write them up than to find them. Netmouse (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without dealing with the nature of the sources themselves - included, among others, are a student newspaper, a webcomic and Slashdot - none of those sources except those which involved a member of staff of the company (not independent) discuss the publisher in any king of detail - there is still a lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Guest9999 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at those sources:
 * MIT: This is not about the company, but about the book, so not relevant to this article.
 * ComixTalk: I found this as well, and will add the little extra information I had not found in the Triad Business Journal article that I have used as a source on the article, should the article survive AfD
 * Baen Publishing: not about the company, but about the Sluggy Freelance strip
 * Witty World International: not about the company, but about the Ozy & Millie strip. The line you quote is all they say about the company - it's not "significant coverage"!
 * Slashdot: not about the company but about the BOFH - the line you quote is all they say about the company, again it's not "significant coverage"
 * Lincoln Heights: Some useful information that could further any significant coverage, but the Lincoln Heights Literary Society would probably not constitute a reliable source according to Wikipedia's criteria.
 * In summary, two of the sources could be used to add a couple of snippets to the article, but they regretably do not constitute the "significant coverage" which the Notability Criteria mention --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While Guest9999 did propose for deletion on the basis of notability as well, the complaint I was attending to in my quick search was lack of verification. The major factual statements in the article have to do with whether or not the publisher did in fact publish the notable comics listed. Even if references are about the books/comics, if they confirm that Plan 9 was the publisher of those comics, they verify facts in the article. The references I pointed to do that. Searching for ' ' and 'published by Plan 9' was all that was necessary to find those sources, and can also be done for the other comics. I've updated the Sluggy Freelance article so you can see the list of Sluggy Freelance books/collections published by Plan 9. This would be a good thing to do for all related articles, and help someone unfamiliar with the topic appreciate Plan 9 Publishing's influence in the field. Netmouse (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The definition of independent media has to do with the publisher, not whether or not the piece "involved" the person being covered. Or would you argue that someone's being interviewed in Time magazine would not serve as a reliable source demonstrating notability and indicating information verification because the magazine "involved" the subject? The publisher is most certainly the greatest expert on why he started the company, which is one of the statements in the article that needs a citation... Netmouse (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They may well be a reliable source for certain information but the information in the articles still comes almost entirely from the company's founder. I am not comfortable with an article about a corporation being based almost entirely on information from someone with such an interest in it. The publications in question are not Time, Time has a reputation for accuracy backed up by full time fact checkers and a legal department, something I doubt either of the two interviewing sites have. I do understand your point of view and reasoning - I just disagree with it in this instance. Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out that links to the product pages on Amazon (and any store) violate WP:EL (and certainly don't count under WP:RS) and should be removed from an article not added, as you seem to suggest with "and of course every single amazon.com page for one of the paperbacks published by Plan 9". (Emperor (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually, WP:EL specifically states "this guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". I see no particular point of WP:RS that repudiates the use of a store site to verify the manufacturer of items for sale, when indicated by that store. Especially a store so well-established for its database as amazon.com. I agree that other sources would be better, but disagree that such liks 'when used as references, not advertising, should be stripped from articles, as a rule.Netmouse (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to, WP:ELNO #15 - if you need to provide a source for product information then the ISBN is sufficient because then people can pick the store of their choice. Putting the link in a footnotes doesn't magically make it OK. Fell free to  raise this at WT:EL or find somewhere where there is a consensus that Amazon is somehow superior to all the other stores with identical information, but until then I can't see why it should be used. (Emperor (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC))


 * As a side note I have yet to find or see any reliable sources which can confirm whether the company is still exists or is operating. Guest9999 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it has stopped operation, the article should remain. Even historically (if it is no longer operating) the company is notable.Netmouse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the publishers continued operation is not relevant to its notability - notability is not temporary. What is relevant is whether basic facts (such as whether it is active) can be verified by reliable sources so that the information can be included in the article (should it be kept) and whether a high-quality, accurate encyclopaedia article on a topic for which such basic facts cannot be confirmed is viable. Guest9999 (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The only source I could find was through the company's own website (and I have added this information to the article). I am reluctant to have an article about a company which seems to be notable deleted, but as yet I cannot find proof of that notability (I'm a great fan of the BOFH series). I have contacted the company, to see if they are still operational (so that the details in the article can be updated if appropriate), and to see if they know of any independent, reliable sources of information. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per Phantomsteve's rationale. I always thought Plan 9 was on the cusp of notability, I'm now doubting it's on the right side of the line. -- Kaszeta (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of Netmouse's refs (those in the first part of the list) look decent sources by the standards of popular culture, and it's unreasonable to require academic sources in such a topic (hell, it's hard to find academic sources on a well-established genre like science fiction). I note that Sluggy Freelance has a citation from The Times, and other sources record that Plan 9 published the print edition of Sluggy Freelance. Kevin and Kell, another web comic that has attracted attention in "real life", is also recorded as published in print by Plan 9.
 * 2nd option use: relist in 12 months. --Philcha (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic problem here is WP:NOTINHERITED. A publisher which publishes various notable webcomics, but which has not in itself received anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, cannot be held to be notable under our criteria. Johnny Depp and Bruce Willis might catch the same number 9 bus to work every morning, but it doesn't mean that the bus is worthy of an article. If the company receives significant coverage in future then there's nothing wrong with recreating this, especially as that might actually provide more than a couple of sentences of material on the company itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth noting that whilst the webcomics themselves may be notable and their media franchises as a whole, the individual books - i.e. the portion of the franchise relating to this publisher - almost certainly aren't. Penny Arcade is definitely a notable webcomic, that doesn't mean that the company which manufactures figurines based on its characters is necessarily notable. Guest9999 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - does anyone here have access to NewsBank, or to the Greensboro, North Carolina News & Record archives--in particular, this article? It looks like it could be useful based on the excerpt, but I don't have access to the rest. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (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.