Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterside 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Waterside Press

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject of article fails WP:ORG as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The mention of the company in The Times was in reference to a book published by the company, not a discussion of the company itself; it was also an incidental mention in a light-hearted "Water Cooler" section, not substantial coverage. The remainder of the references currently in the article are either online directories or sources closely connected with the company itself. The company may be significant as a niche publisher in its own specific field, but this is not sufficient for notability. The article creator has pointed out that some books published by the company appear in reading lists at respected universities. However, such mentions are not under "Essential Reading" and the works are not listed as subjects for study in themselves. In any case, that would be a case for the notability of the books; it does not confer notability on the company. ("not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" is suggested at WP:NOTINHERITED.) Finally, a Google search reveals that it says here that "JWL and Waterside Press are trading names of Duncan Print Group Ltd." - so this is not in fact a separate company, but merely a trading name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be an example if a case where the energy devoted to arguing for deletion might be better spent improving and referencing the article. If I bought a copy of a book this company published, and wanted to know more about the publisher, I would want Wikipedia to have an article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources does not exist, then it can't (by definition) be added to the article - as references or anything else. Yes attempts were made to improve the article. The article's creator (the only person to edit it other than me) has acknowledged that there is very little coverage in secondary sources and that it's pretty much impossible to improve/expand the article further as a result. If I bought a some-widget made by some-company then Wikipedia should have an article on some-company does not seem a very strong argument for over-riding what the policy at WP:ORG actually says. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find multiple, independent, and reliable sources to verify notability. While this is an interesting niche and I learned something from the article, it needs to be notable to pass Wikipedia's standards.--Artlovesyou (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks evidence of notability, as most of the coverage is either incidental or originates from the company. Figureofnine (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Demiurge1000 has summed this up perfectly. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above. This content really belongs in a sub-section of an article on Duncan Print Group Ltd, which is notable.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (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.