Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telos 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. I still stand by the views I expressed below, and it is possible that by the end of the week I would have support for that view, but I am willing to accept that, on present showing, consensus is against me. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Telos Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was proposed for deletion, with the reason given as "Non-notable private company in the publishing business. No significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources can be found." The PROD was removed, without any explanation. The reason given in the PROD seems perfectly correct. Of the five sources cited in the article, one is a dead link, three merely credit Telos Publishing as the publisher of books mentioned, or the company that people mentioned work for. That leaves only one that mentions Telos Publishing in its own right, and that one merely mentions it once. In a Google search, the first few hits are: www.telos.co.uk; FaceBook; this Wikipedia article; a page at www.telos.me.uk; another apge at www.telos.me.uk; a promotional page, which refers to Telos as "we"; wikia; blogspot; and so it goes on. In short, neither in the citations in the article nor anywhere else deos there seem to be any evidence at all that of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (or at the very least redirect/merge to David J. Howe - in Doctor Who fandom, they are quite well known. The founder's article has passed notability on a recreation following its recent (questionably handled) AFD/deletion so a redirect would be appropriate in that case. Mabalu (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This is a well-known publishing company and there must be good references out there. I would have been better to have tagged it for improvements before jumping in to an AfD (and I think this should be general procedure).  If I get any time I'll look to help update it, but that might not be for a few days. Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "There must be good references out there"? If there are then it shouldn't be hard to find them and link to them. Merely speculating that there "must be" references, without providing them, fails Wikipedia's verifiability policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit of good faith needed there, thank you. I do believe they won't be hard to find but, as I said, I don't have a lot of time right now.  So the Wikilawyering really isn't necessary. Stephenb (Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The links which "mention Telos as the publisher of books mentioned" are sources noting awards won by the publisher. If awards won by a publisher for its books aren't evidence of notability, what is? (As an aside, the nominating editor also started an AfD, since reversed, for Telos' founder David J. Howe, suggesting that there may be an ulterior motive at play here.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, an award won by a book is not the same thing as an award won by it publisher. Secondly, in answer to your question "what is [evidence of notability]?", the answer according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines is substantial coverage in multiple sources independent of the company. Brief passing mentions are not enough, even if those brief passing mentions are about awards. If the awards are really significant then there will be substantial coverage of them in independent sources, such as newspapers; if they are not, then there probably won't be. As for your accusations of an "ulterior motive", I can assure you that I nominate articles for deletion if I can find no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. What "ulterior" motive you think I have, I don't know, but in any case, it's irrelevant, as this AfD will be closed on the basis of the arguments advanced here, not on speculations about motives. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When I saw the question amounting, in effect, to "if brief passing mentions of awards are not evidence of notability, then what is?" I assumed that it came from an inexperienced editor. Also, the unsubstantiated accusation of an "ulterior motive" is the sort of thing that commonly comes in AfD from a new editor, who is not used to Wikipedia's ways, and assumes that anyone who wants to edit an article they like must have some sort of vendetta. However, I find it is from an administrator, who has been here for 8 years, and has made over 30000 edits. I am amazed that such an editor seems not to be aware of the notability guidelines, and that passing mentions are not enough. I am also surprised that an administrator will make such unsubstantiated accusations. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the notability guidelines, thank you very much. I merely disagree with you on their interpretation. I'd say that the links given here constitute "substantial coverage in multiple sources independent of the company", since Starburst magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald, the British Fantasy Society and the World Fantasy Award are all independent of Telos, and awards are in and of themselves substantial. Finally, the WFA was given to the publishers for their publishing work — that is, for Telos Publishing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Awards  show notability. And, as Josiah clarifies, one of the awards was specifically as a publisher    DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this "World Fantasy Board" that provides these awards, anyway? Their website looks pretty amateurish. Doesn't necessarily mean their opinion is not respected in the field, but did you wonder at all about the origin of the award, or did you just automatically think "award=notable"? 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, having some familiarity with the field I knew that the World Fantasy Award is one of the most prestigious awards in the field of fantasy. Our list article World Fantasy Special Award: Non-Professional lists the award which Telos' founders were given in 2006. If you're not familiar with the WFA, perhaps this summary explanation from Locus magazine will help explain them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no evidence of notability. DGG says "Awards  show notability", but he doesn't say how or why. I see no evidence that these awards are significant: if DGG does see such evidence, then he needs to tell us what that evidence is. It absolutely does not automatically follow that just because they have some "award" that they are notable. There are many "awards" that are awarded by small groups or associations to their own members, which convey no notability at all. I don't know whether this applies to these awards, but extensive searching has produced no evidence that the awards are significant. Is there any substantial coverage of these awards in independent reliable sources? is there any substantial coverage of anything to do with Telos Publishing in reliable independent sources? Nobody has produced any, either in this discussion or in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for a start, here's coverage of the WFA from Locus. The British Fantasy Award is notable enough that when a recipient returned the award after a dispute it was covered in the Guardian. If we were discussing a book, these would be exactly the sort of "major literary awards" that qualify a book in Notability (books). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not one of the "keep" reasons given so far holds up to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies: we have (1) "in Doctor Who fandom, they are quite well known" - being well known in a niche market does not feature in the notability guidelines; (2) another article on a related subject has been recreated after initially being deleted at AfD - an article does not inherit notability from another one on a related subject; (3) "there must be good references out there" - we don't keep articles on the basis of speculation that sources "must" exist that have not been found by anyone; (4) the publishers have won awards - yes, but are they significant awards? Maybe they are, but nobody has shown that they are. I cannot claim that there is strong consensus for deletion, but I can and do claim that there have been no arguments at all for keeping that have any validity at all under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My position is that the awards, which are indeed major literary awards, themselves constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is Wikipedia's definition of notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (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.