Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROH 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 speedy delete. Author requested deletion (diff). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ROH Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail NCORP and the GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Qwfp (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a guess, but he probably saw the "London, Canada" and mistook for "London, England". I almost did until I double checked. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing for actual independent notability apart from simply mentioning other people and things, I'm not finding better, so there's therefore nothing for a convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  03:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello, with regards to notability: ROH Press is unique in the products they publish. We do not just publish books in the public domain. We are the only publishing house that publishes English translations of Mr Salgari's work. Our publications are also used in research. I have added two journal articles and 6 books that cite ROH Press publications. I have also added newspaper stories and online book reviews of ROH Press titles. Wikipedia currently has 7 pages dedicated to ROH Press titles. ROH Press is pretty much the only publisher introducing Mr. Salgari's work to an English speaking audience; the content on the Emilio Salgari page was either written by me or taken from the ROH Press website. :) If there is information that you would like to see on this page, please advise. SwisterTwister commented on the page about ten minutes after I had started creating it...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. If you're going to do a free image search, search for ROH Press Salgari. If you're going to do a books search, please type in ROH Press Salgari on any of the Amazon, B&N etc. sites. Otherwise you are not getting a fair representation of our book list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Has there been any third-party coverage in sources that pass WP:RS actually about your company? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from La Stampa: one of Italy's most famous newspapers. ROH Press is mentioned in the first paragraph. http://www.lastampa.it/2010/04/19/cultura/libri/salgari-sandokan-tradottonella-lingua-delle-tigri-di-mompracem-nHeAzc4dcGPz8cWNYqJVxI/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from Italy Magazine: http://www.italymagazine.com/featured-story/book-week-sandokan-tigers-mompracem
 * I listed several journals and published books that cite our publications. The work is also cited here: http://www.iperstoria.it/vecchiosito/httpdocs//?p=125
 * Classics for Pleasure by Michael Dirda has a short review of the ROH Press title Mathias Sandorf.
 * Julia Eccleshare's 1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up contains a review and recommendation for the Tigers of Mompracem as does Peter Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
 * Lucy Daniel’s also includes a write up in Defining Moments in Books: The Greatest Books, Writers, Characters, Passages and Events that Shook the Literary World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. There is no substantive coverage of this press from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I checked on Google, Bing, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books and Highbeam and found nothing of substance. The La Stampa article name-checks the press once, but this only indicates that the press exists; it does not go to notability. /wiae /tlk  13:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the La Stampa article states that the ROH Press novel The Pirates of Malaysia was used as the base for the translation by the Malaysian publisher. A ROH product was used to create a product in another language in another country. Notable enough to make national news in Italy, both print and television. There would not have been a Malay translation if not for the English version.
 * Other Texts
 * Rizzoli: http://www.accademiadrosselmeier.com/invito_NY_rizzoli.pdf
 * DePauw university: http://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=mlang_facpubs
 * http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845264066-80/western-imaginaries-between-fascination-colonial-construction-and-appropriation-the-lore-of-a-mysterious-india-of-the-goddess-kali-and-of-her-evil-devotees
 * The Tigers of Mompracem taught at bates.edu https://www.academia.edu/15019831/Pirates_in_Literature_and_Film
 * You haven't found the two peer reviewed articles that I listed in works that cite ROH Press or any of the other works cited. You haven't looked at any of the titles by Eccleshare, Boxall, Eco or Daniels, haven't done an image search with ROH Press Salgari, haven't looked at OPAC listings, haven't searched library archives Canada, haven't searched any of the online bookstores to see our full online catalogues, haven't Googled any ISBN numbers to check for international distribution, Google books is incomplete.
 * 7 ROH Press titles have their own Wikipedia page. How can the output of an indie publisher be considered notable, but the indie publisher itself is not?
 * What about the presence of the books in libraries?
 * Written in 1885, Mathias Sandorf is a tale of survival and revenge. The novel tells the story of Dr. Antekirtt, a dry-docked Captain Nemo and master of an island fortress full of advanced weaponry.
 * -- Library Journal, Classic Returns, Michael Rogers, December 15, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Canada: http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb-bin/aamain/rqst_sb?sessionKey=1476068047039_142_78_200_14
 * Australia: http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=sandokan
 * Malaysia: http://pustaka.summon.serialssolutions.com/search/results?q=salgari&spellcheck=true#!/search?ho=t&l=en&q=%22roh%20Press%22
 * OPAC: http://www.librarynet.com.my/pls/angkasa/opac3_list.hit_list?pc_itemloc=&pc_author=salgari&pc_title=sandokan&pc_subject=&pc_sort=&pn_hitlimit=10&pc_desc=Y&pc_location=&pc_more=&pc_product=OPAC&pn_page=1&pc_location=&pc_searchtype=basic
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: the sources listed by Sidzee in comments above only mention ROH Press as publishing the book (ie - a trivial mention) if at all (several do not mention ROH Press); none of those sources are about the company. Sidzee, you are being asked to provide articles from reliable sources that discuss the company, not the company's products. Such articles should describe, for example, the company's history, executive, operations, and other corporate details. The fact that it publishes versions of public domain material is irrelevant for notability purposes. Mind  matrix  16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: You measure a publishing company by what happens to the books it publishes. ROH Press does not republish public domain works. The English translations are not public domain. There are no other English translations of Mr Salgari's works. These are the first ones ever. The Spanish editions are also not public domain, they are new annotated translations therefore copyrightable derivative works some issued in unabridged form for the first time in thirty years. The Pirates anthology has had the racist language edited out, making it different from all other titles on the market. The English translations are now in various libraries around the world, have been cited in research, taught in universities, cited in books that rank other books and one English translation has won an award. Most books published in 1898 don't don't get on bestseller lists, but the books are being read nationally and internationally. As I mentioned above, there are 7 Wikipedia pages that describe ROH Press titles, how can the output be notable but the company that creates the output not be notable? They're publishing novels that no one else publishes or has ever published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The ROH Press title of Mathias Sandorf (2007) was the first re-issue of of the title in 80 years. It was the first complete and unabridged version to be published in English. Michael Dirda reviewed it in Classics for Pleasure and mentioned it again in his article in the Washington Post in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/04/DI2007100401051.html . Dirda was referencing the ROH Press publication; there were no electronic public domain editions of this title available online at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 3:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. While uniqueness can speak to notability if that claim is properly cited to reliable sources which are independent of the company's own self-promotion, a company does not get exempted from our sourcing requirements just because it claims to be unique — every single thing and every single person that exists at all can always claim to be unique in some way, so an unsourced article cannot be kept just because somebody asserts uniqueness. And notability is not inherited, so the company doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because of the particular titles or authors it happens to publish either. The company gets a Wikipedia article if, and only if, it can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough substantive coverage in media to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. But nothing shown here satisfies that requirement — having its name mentioned in reviews of its books does not constitute coverage about the company, and nothing that does constitute coverage about the company is being shown at all. And furthermore, Sidzee, the fact that you use the first person we to talk about the company, meaning that you're either an employee or an owner of it, means that you have a conflict of interest — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform, and our rules explicitly state that if you're directly affiliated with the topic then you can't start an article about it yourself. We exist as a venue for neutral third party content, not as a platform for companies to republish their own marketing materials. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." And that criteria has been met in the inclusion/reviews of ROH Press titles in the works of Dirda, Eccleshare, Boxall, Eco and Daniels published by different publishers. You can't Google their content because they are physical books; Amazon doesn't offer a look inside feature because once you get a look at the table of contents there is no reason to buy the book. A translation is either as good as, better, or worse than the original. The La Stampa article mentions that the ROH Press title The Pirates of Malaysia was used as a source for the Malay translation, that was national news in Italy. It's not important how many board members ROH has, it's office size, etc.. Most book reviews don't talk about the publisher they talk about the book. That's what's important to readers. Most articles about publishers are little more than PR for the publisher. There is no other publisher that publishes the same English titles as ROH Press. They were the first company to make Mr Salgari's titles available in English. You want articles about staff size, and board members, and buildings. Not going to happen. Delete the article today please. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 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.