Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Summit Publishers


 * 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. John254 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington Summit Publishers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is made solely of disparaging comments regarding the subject. It clearly fails WP:NPOV and constitutes an attack page. The prod was removed so I am taking it to AfD even though the person removing the tag refused to state why, and is the one adding only negative material of the subject. N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DeletePer my own comments above. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually the article was created by a Washington Summit Publishers supporter. Adding criticisms is no reason for deletion. Notable publisher for the far right as seen by the Southern Poverty Law Center comments and hate group listing.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was created as, however it has since become an attack page with only attacking comments including "... lists WSP as a White Nationalist Hate Group" and as noted you are the sole person adding content, content which is only attacking and disparaging the subject against WP:NPOV and rules regarding attack pages. Do you plan to balance the article to make it not a violation of WP:NPOV, or are we simply to leave an attack article in place since the SPL commented on them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourced criticisms is not a reason for deletion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole page is sourced criticism, hence it is an attack page. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a tricky one. There are numerous trivial and/or non-independent sources showing that this is a significant publisher in its niche, but the only in-depth sources seem to be critical ones, posing heavy undue weight constraints. It may be possible to address these using the existing sources to rewrite the article in a more balanced fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and would hope the article can be re-created in a neutral manner. However the only content is in disparaging and the person adding such information has no intention to balance it, as the content of this article is fall out over a disagreement on another article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not an equal space policy requiring that everything must have just equal amounts of support and criticism. Some things (like far right organizations) usually have received more criticisms than support. However, if you have any supporting sources, then please add them.Ultramarine (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)" We also have rules regarding attack pages, sourced attack pages are still attack pages. For example it would be easy to find sources stating negative things about a famous person, such as Paris Hilton, however if the only content on such page was attacking her, that would be an attack page. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is a quite different policy for living persons. Again, NPOV is not an equal space policy. From the WP:NPOV/FAQ: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."Ultramarine (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted in NPOV articles whose content is disparaging to the subject is not permitted, you still have not refuted this article falls under that criteria. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that 'disparaging' can really be applied to very much of the article at all. Which specific statements are you referring to? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While some of the content may need to be rewritten, I see no grounds for deletion of the page. If an editor finds there is an undue weight given to one side, he/she should add sourced material to correct the weight, not try to remove sourced criticism because very few people have said something positive about the subject. Should criticism about Adolf Hitler be removed to make that article more neutral?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have read the article on Hitler you would see it is not solely composed of a criticism section, so it is following our guidelines on attack pages and NPOV. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the article on Washington Summit Publishers isn't solely composed of criticism.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a 12:1 ratio. With the 1 being 1 sentence not of criticism and 2 paragraphs of criticism. In a month we will just revisit think again. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, NPOV is not a valid reason to have a page deleted. And I would suggest you don't renominate this page after only one month. Renominating until you get the desired outcome is strongly frowned upon here at WP.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So is assuming good faith. I will be renominating it in a month after the contents do not change and noone attempts to fix the issue, therefore showing it is an attack page and since it is not changing the page cannot exist forever as an attack page. NPOV is not a reason to delete because the content can be balance in time, or so it is believed, when the content has not changed in a month, people will see it was created so Ultramarine had some place to put the accusations he wanted to include in the book article, the same ones you are attempting to put. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you think the article is unbalanced, and you object to that, then you should edit it to provide the balance. Why do you expect other people to do that for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The business would seem to meet the general notability guidelines; it has indeed been noticed by multiple, independent, reliable sources.  The fact that most of those sources are hostile is to be expected, given the sort of material they publish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page violates NPOV, but article deletion is not the proper remedy. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Minor googling establishes notability. The article needs to be beefed out with more detail about what they do publish (and other businessy stuff) but the negative material seems well documented. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, this appears to be a Speedy Keep. There is no contention that the subject of the article does not meet WP:N; while there does not seem to be evidence to support the claim that the article "is made solely of disparaging comments" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (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.