Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RockWay 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RockWay Press

DeleteAttacK page that may well be true but is all supposition. What WP is not is a consumer protection site. Spartaz 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi My name is Persi and I would just like to ask if you have been following the discussion regarding the deletion of the article on RockWay Press. I have provided several very valid sources and it would mean a lot to potential authors who surf for information on this publisher to be able to read this article. If you have visited the sites that link from the article, you would see a lot of discussion from people like me who have been burned by this publisher and by scam publishers in general. I realize Wikipedia isnt a consumer protection site -per se - but it does have the visibility needed to help people learn more about this company in particular and about scam publishers in general. Preditors and Editors is the most reputable site in the publishing world regarding rating publishers. This weekend, they gave Rockway their red "Not Recommended" rating. However if you surf the name Rockway on Google, you will find that there is no connection from P and E to Rockway listed -- even if you surf hundreds and hundreds of listings. However, Wikipedia is the first listing on page two. There are thousands of people out there writing every day -- thinking they have what it takes to be the next Dan Brown. The publishing world is tough to break into - and when a company like Rockway offers what seems to be an easy entry, many people go for it - only to be burned big time. When a person writes, that work is their intellectual property. It is akin to giving birth to actually write a book. And it is unfortunate that people like Rockway can so easily take away not only your dreams but your intellectual property as well. Google Rockway, please. Note how high up on the listing the Wikipedia page is. Think about innocent victims all over the world who just might see that listing and read it before they send any money or sign anything. Realize that the article here also offers these people the ability to link to sites like Preditors and Editors where more information to help them is available. Not too long ago, I was a neophyte like that -- I had NO idea what Preditors and Editors even was. I came within a breath of signing away a very good book I put my life into to Rockway. Since then, I have joined with others who work within the industry to bring these scams to light. Please let us have the chance to reach more people through Wikipedia. Your positive comments would be much appreciated. This is not a personal matter -- if you read the Absolute Write site, you will see that only today a new victim posted. There are more and more every day. Thanks for listening. Persi --Persiphone hellecat1 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as attack page on RockWay Press. Written from the POV of someone who dislikes the organization. Kalani ^[talk] 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT true == written by someone who defends authors and helps to keep them from fallig into scams. People deserve to be notified when some scam exits. Not a single word is supposition. You can go to the sites mentioned in the article and read for yourself that this publisher is mentioned in reputable Writers Beware Sites. You can also go to their very own site and see that the 2004 winners of their contest are still awaiting thier prizes. There is not one single word of supposition in here. I am a reputable free lance author myself and I do not write supposition. Persi

• Comment:In which case properly source your article rather than leaving people to go and look for it themselves. There are no proper sources shown on the article. See WP:RS--Spartaz 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In which case the question becomes, "Is this a notable enough scam to be included for that reason?" --Brianyoumans 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent confirmation is cited. I looked for something that confirms the editor's opinion of this company, but couldn't find anything to cite. However, having looked at the Co's website I would think their opinion is correct. I don't see any reason why "notable" scams shouldn't be listed - providing the information is correctly cited. --Richhoncho 21:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I know nothing about book publishing, I do know a little about music publishing. "Artistic" contests any description send a shiver through me, but then again, there are bona fide song contests, so I assume the same in book publishing. The owner of this business has had books published by reputable publishers. The citations in the article are from forums, so I would discount them for Wikipedia purposes, as the likelihood is that they are disgruntled authors (and like the music biz, I bet there's millions of them!). The claimed fact that the owner is a coffee bar waitress doesn't hold water - using that as a criteria would make people in the film industry redundant! Missed deadlines are not enough to prove a scam, otherwise I shall be listing my rail company. As for the quotes from the Rockway site, they could be changed tomorrow. Having said all that, I have every sympathy with the creator of this page - I have my own website to expose the more dubious practices at the shallow end of the music business, so I know how difficult it is the pin facts on the matter. For this article to hold water I'd like to see a legal judgment cited. --Richhoncho 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely will source it now. If you did look at the company's site, you would notice that there are NO books published among the winners of the 2004 and 2005 contests. There are literally thousands of would-be authors world-wide trying anything just to get published and they turn towards these contests and small publishers as a way to get into the book business. I will cite now.

I believe the article is properly sourced now and represents an invaluable tool to potential authors as an example of the type of publishers to avoid.

• Comment Perhaps the right thing to do would be to turn this article into a more general article entitled something like "Writing Contests", which would point out that many publishers run such things and that while they can encourage starting writers, they are frequently scams and rarely lead to real publication. And then RockWay Press and such could be redirected there. --Brianyoumans 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Richhoncho - she has had books published - by someone else - doesnt it seem odd that a publisher uses someone else to publish her own books while she is unable to publish anyone else's?? When you win a contest in 2004, one would think that by the eighth month of 2006 you would have recieved your prize. This is a serious problem for authors who no longer own the rights to their own works and cannot even try and get them published elsewhere - just because they sent 25 dollars to Rockway and entered a contest. The forums I linked show comments from authors. Preditors and Editors is not a forum. It is a well known site where authors go to verify agents, publishers and contests. They have spoken out against Rockway and advised authors not to use them. In the publishing business, that holds a lot of weight. True, lateness for deadlines isnt necessarily a sign of a scam, however late by over two years certainly isnt a good sign is it?

—comment added by Example^(t/c) 02:52, 6 August 2006 Persiphone hellecat1 (Talk | contribs)}}

• Further comment. As I say, I have every sympathy, if I was an author I wouldn't touch this company with a ten-foot. It's not I don't appreciate your concern for authors, It's just that I am convinced that WP is not the place to do it in this instance. Preditors and Editors only say "might" which leaves us with the possibility of slander libel, <of course>. Are you saying that Rockway retains copyright on all submissions? BTW A positive article on Predators & Editors might have a better effect for your purposes.--Richhoncho 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above post was amended by the author. My silly mistake! --Richhoncho 11:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, If you read their rules for contest submissions, ALL entries must be accompanied by a signed contract, making ALL entries - whether they win or not ... technically their property Oddly enough, this article has been on WP for quite a while. It was taken down when one of my kids decided to use my account to get into that thing that happened on TV the other day. Before that, there was never so much as a word of comment on the page.

• Comment. I didn't see where they claimed copyright, what I did read was "The copyright will be registered in the author's name, and all subsidiary rights (i.e., book club, foreign rights, film, stage, etc.) remain with the author." Totally bizarre, in my opinion, but not the same as you say.

• By the way can you sign your posts on this page, just click the signature button just above the editing page. Thanks. --Richhoncho 11:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ... If you go to the "submissions package requirements section of the contest guidelines at http://rockwaypress.com/annual_writing_contests.htm#contents, you will see that ALL entries must be submitted with a signed and notarized contract - making even losing entries their property. Extremely bizarre -- totally unprofessional. That means that they can simply declare no entry "worthy" of first place and yet retain legal custody of all entries. This is one of the issues currently being discussed widely among the publishing industry and one of the reasons people are being warned about this company and this contest in particular. There are way too many innocent victims of these contests. Sure, 25 to 35 dollars isnt a lot when its one entry,but consider hundreds of entries - from as far away as Au., and it adds up. Also consider that people outside of America have very little chance of fighting this legally. It's hard enough for legal action from one state to another and nearly impossible for a would - be author in Au. to fight this. This is why I am publishing in as many locations as I possibly can so that it gets seen and read. Wikipedia is a logical choice. It has high visibility. Incidently no where did Preditors and Editors use the word "night" . Their entry for Rockway under publishers reads "Not recommended. A publisher. Site features good information about publishing business that writers should know. Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors." That is pretty clear. And their entry under Contests reads "RockWay Press 2005 International Writing Competitions: Charges fee. See the web site for full details. While this publisher has earned a Truly Useful Site Award from P&E, P&E does not endorse their competition." I think that pretty well indicates that Preditors and Editors, a well known and reputable site has done their homework and made a responsible decision to post the negative listing. They, too have to consider liability and they have heard from RockWay authors and decided to go all the way to list RockWay as "Not Recommended." The owner of that site is well known in the Publishing Industry. His name and phone number are listed. Certainly if he was unsure about this decision, he would have said something less specific. I think that certainly explains why a Wikipedia listing is justified. Thanks for your interest and your dialogue ... it is certainly helping me in my fight against this company. Only two months ago, RockWay was still recommended by P and E -- I have fought hard to get very frightened RockWay authors who have been threatened if they spoke out to to step forward and write to P and E with their experiences, earning Rockway first the "Despite their good information, P&E is hearing of complaints regarding this publisher in its dealings with authors" part of the listing and finally this week the "Not recommended was added." I am proud of my efforts. Incidently, my knowledge of this scam first came about when I very nearly signed a RockWay contract myself. A book written by me was accepted by them and I was thrilled until I read their contract and retracted my book before she got her claws into it. I thank my Creator for that every single day. Others are not as fortunate as me. But I hope some will learn about the publishing business from this and about RockWay specifically. Thank you. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI - New information has been added to the page at Absolute Write == another author who is being harassed by Rockway has surfaced and has posted her story there. I think it should be very clear what kind of company this is and how important it is to protect would-be authors from them. Please help spare others from this kind of abuse. I refer you to page two of this thread and the posts of a Susan Dhttp://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=708. Thanks again. Persi--Persiphone 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Richhoncho -- Could you please point out the libleous remarks to me in the article? Quite honestly I see none.

li·bel audio (lbl) KEY NOUN:

 1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
 2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Since I have documented everything said to be true according to other sources, how can anything here be lible? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia -- a source of information for others. What information could be more pertinent to people than assisting them in making decisions? The number of elephants in the world or that the publisher they are considering sending their life's work to isn't what they claim to be? Serious question --Persiphone 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help thinking that you are being alittle obsessive about this. At the end of the day we keep or delete this article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not by the amount of energy that the discusion generates. How about you read WP:WEB to see the standards that are expected for a notable internet site. Since its a company you could also see WP:CORP. WP:NOTABILITY is an excellent read. The article is unencyclopedic and as I said earlier WP:NOT a consumer protection site. Please try to calm down a frame your arguments in the context of the policies I have listed for you. Thanks. --Spartaz 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the policies and I know that after five days, there is a decision based on a consensus of opinion. And I cant help but wondering about your interest either. Your profile states you are new and yet you've been lurking here 6 months and yet you feel you have the right to determine what is unencyclopedic. Are the listings for Random House, Harper Collins, Doubleday and Little Brown also unencyclopedic? They're publishers too. You use the term "We" -- is that a royal "We" or are you Wikipedia? Do you have any knowledge of the publishing industry to make a decision about this article? Authors are funny people. We do the research, put our heart and soul into what we write and along comes someone who offers no credentials for his opinion but has the right to get an article deleted just because he says so. I find that a little bizarre and I would say that I am not the obsessive one here. I have simply done as the rules for deletion say and done my best to justify this article in an effort to make you understand and form a more educated opinion. It seems you are the only one who seems to have a problem with this article and I just want to know why it offends you. I have offered more than enough evidence and clearly justified everything the article says. I have also asked is not Wikipedia not a place for people to come for information, and is this information not as important as the number of elephants in the world. I have also said this article existed before for a very long time with absolutely no issues until it had to be re-instated. That's apparently when you discovered it and decided to tag it for deletion based on absolutely nothing. I deal with authors every day who are harmed by Rockway and others like them. You dont. Yet you seem to believe that somehow it is only your opinion that matters. Why is that? I am not trying to get into an arguement here, I simply want to know why the deletion of this article is such an important issue to you and on what grounds you have the right to say so. So far you have said nothing except that you viewed it as an "attack". I have justified the facts with sources proving it isnt an attack but merely information published to assist authors in making responsible decisions regarding publishers- one in particular. This was an experiiment. I have many other publishers I had intended to write articles about and link - each with a similar story. Wikipedia is high notice -- it gets attention. When you google a topic, the Wikipedia listing is right there at the top. Wouldnt it seem to you that would be a good thing for authors to be able to see? After all, words are our bread and butter. I simply want this listing to stay. I worked hard on it and did my homework, as I always do when I write, and someone simply comes along and for no reason at all says, I think it shouldnt be there, and I want to know why such an opinion as yours matters and holds more weight than the work of an author publishing a well researched article. If that is obsession in your eyes, so be it. In my eyes, someone who randomly selects an article and decides it should be deleted with no information to back up their opinion is the obsessive one. This page is here for the purpose of explanation and discussion and that is just what I am doing. Unfortunately, I know no other authors who are registered Wikipedia people to come here and express their opinions. They read Wikipedia only and the information regarding deletion clearly states if they register now, "new" people's opionions don't count. Where do you stand on that? Your profile states you are new. --Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)--Persiphone hellecat1 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (too complex to be called a vote). If "Preditors and Editors" deserves an article (which it may very well), and "RockWay Press" deserves mention there, then redirect. If "Preditors and Editors" qualifies as a reliable source, then keep only those paragraphs sourced there. Otherwise, delete under WP:LIVING as it relates to Alexandria/Sherri Szeman. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Reiterating, delete under WP:LIVING unless the allegations and the analysis are sourced. I think you've done a reasonably good job of sourcing the allegations, but not the analysis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2006 (U

I am trying very hard to understand your comments. I have added an article for Preditors and Editors, and I have cross referenced them. However I do not understand the part about WP:LIVING. I read the information and I'm not sure at all I understand it. I am not aware of doing anything that put it in that section. If you would kindly advise me how to proceed it would be most helpful. I would be interested in adding other articles regarding the publishing industry and just want to make sure I'm doing it right. I appreciate your reading my comments and taking them into consideration, but I require additional assistance. I am also not sure I understand the difference between sourcing the allegations and not the analysis. Please explain and I wil do what I can to correct it. Persi--Persiphone hellecat1 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING applies because you've (quite properly, IMHO), identified RockWay Press with its founders. Hence, any derogatory comments must be carefully sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the founder's name from the article. Further information can easily be obtained by going to the link to her site, correct? So perhaps her name isnt needed here. Might that not simplify the issue a bit? Thank you for your advice, I am finding this very interesting and a very challenging write. --Persiphone 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. In accordance with WP:BOLD I have nearly completely re-written the article. I have only kept or added items which are verifiable. However it is still a disparagement article and Rockway Press would be fully entitled to have the article removed without any reference to this AfD discussion. I'll let other editors decide this one. --Richhoncho 10:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Excellent re-write, but I still don't see RockWay Press as notable. Article still seems as if the only reason it was written was to disparage the subject. Delete on grounds of non-notability and attack. SWAdair 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SWAdair. The company appears completely non notable. Resolute 04:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed w/ SWAdair. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, A6 as attack page. Regardless of the rambling defenses of the article that verge frequently into ad hominem attacks on the commentators, it was plainly intended to be an attack page ... and this article and the AfD discussion constitute the creator's sole contributions to Wikipedia. However cleaned up, it still is one. RGTraynor 07:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor's well-made case. Eusebeus 12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. Even once cleaned up and made NPOV, it will still be non-notable. eaolson 15:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, despite author's noble intentions to warn others about what may appears to be a scam. Bur WP is not a consumer warning service. There are websites, such as Preditors & Editors that do this job nicely.
• Delete' - regardless of whether Rockway press is scam or not, it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP anyways. -- Whpq 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above... regardless of whether this is an attack page, there is still no evidence that this press meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Nickieee 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete makes no claim of notability, as well as devoting half its content to attacks. Musaabdulrashid 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As the substantial editor of the last edit I have read the comments above and will add my delete in for good measure. However, it does strike me that those that merely considering it an attack page have slightly missed the point - an attack page should be deleted if not verified, in this case I have verified from primary and secondary sources. If disparagement is a reason for deletion here then every listing at WP that is here merely because the subject is a murderer, accused terrorist. pedophile etc should go too, for the exactly the same reasons. RockWay, in itself is certainly not notable, but there is a large industry selling "talent contests" who are no more than scams, and because those that pay their money haven't lost the house, it doesn't ever become "public news." - which was the reason for my getting involved here. however, there are valued, legitimate talent contests too, so an article Writing Contests are bad just wouldn't work. Thanks for your time everybody. --Richhoncho 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• See above. Redirect to Preditors and Editors, as it's mentioned there. No vote as to whether it should be deleted, first. "Devoting half its content to attacks." is not a reason to delete if those attacks are properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

comment - where did I say it was created as an attack page? I said it was created as a warning for potential submissions --Persiphone hellecat1 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not on the face of it, but however much it's been toned down from the shrill original, the creator of the article admits it was intended as an attack page. Regardless of the sourcing or any proofs proffered, that's a prima facie, black-letter ground for deletion. [comm[User:RGTraynor|RGTraynor]] 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The truer it is the less notable is the subject. WP:NOT. What's left seems to still be an attack page. Too bad it was not speedied. :) Dlohcierekim 08:09, 15 August 2006 (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.