Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soho Press

Soho 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 Keep. After a week there is no support to delete this, and substantial evidence of the publisher's notability has been presented. I myself found an article from the NYTimes entitled Laura Chapman Hruska, Co-Founder of Soho Press, Dies at 74. Given the clear well-founded consensus here, I am closing this as a Non-admin closure. Johnsemlak (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article reads like an advertisment Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep This is one of a series of AFD noms done without any hint that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE and checked for evidence of notability. The rationale deals with the tone of the article, which could be corrected by editing if there were references satisfying WP:ORG. The nominator does not say that he checked for articles about the publisher in trade sources or Google News archive. Edison (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should refresh yourself on WP:NPP, which incorporates WP:BEFORE: Does the article belong on Wikipedia? An article may qualify for deletion if it has obvious notability problems, is a content fork, or suffers from any other common reasons for deletion. First, consider the steps listed at WP:BEFORE. Then, if you believe that the article is not salvageable, either propose it for deletion or nominate it for deletion, whichever is more appropriate. If you're dismissing WP:BEFORE out of hand, as you pretty clearly seem to be doing, you're out of step with policy and practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Article subject is clearly notable, and nominator doesn't state valid grounds for deletion. If a word or two is too peacockish for your taste, just edit them out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This company meets our relevant notability standard.  WP:CORPDEPTH. The New York Times discussed the founding of the company in depth in 1987.  The Dallas Morning News also reported on the company's formation here in 1987.  Though the full text is hidden behind a pay wall, I found: "Willard Spiegelman, editor of Southwest Review, the Southern Methodist University quarterly, has been named an editor-in-the-field for the newly formed Soho Press of New York City."  As the years went by, the New York Times called it one of the "better known, larger companies" in a 1999 article about independent publishers based in New York.  In a 2006 article, the New York Times listed the company as among "the country’s most prestigious small publishers".   This 2006 article and this 2010 article in Library Journal, discuss Soho's publishing process. Articles about authors signed to the publisher often discuss how the company evaluates its authors, such as this 2002 article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Patricia Carlon a deaf Australian mystery writer published by Soho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs)
 * Then a rewrite of the article is advisable. To show its notability instead of its marketing department.... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, one of many poorly written articles on significant publishers. These guys are not a vanity press or some other nonnotable publisher type. of course, finding refs on the PUBLISHER is more difficult than on the books they publish, but not impossible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (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.