Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The UKA Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was Keep. —Centrx→talk • 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The UKA Press

Some sort of British authors' association of questionable notability. The original article was a blatant advertisement, so I tagged it for proposed deletion. The author removed the prod tag, rewriting the article as a substub instead of an advertisement. Because the author never explained the removal of the prod tag, and the article still doesn't assert notability, I'm bringing it to AfD. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Look, I'm really sorry, I'm not terribly well-up with the WIKI policy. I do see that the original article could be seen as an advert. Therefore I deleted it and replaced with the text you see, hoping it would be acceptable. Apparently it is not, so please feel free to delete as you see fit. I'm afraid I have no idea what a 'prodtag' or a 'substub' are.

I would like to point out, though, that UKA Press is a legitimate Small Press publisher, and not 'questionable' in the least. As for not being 'notable enough', you really should give the small guys a chance sometimes, y'know :-)

Huge apologies, however, for the confusion this has caused. As I said, please delete if you feel it necessary, or I can delete the entry myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndreaUKA (talk • contribs).

  • For clarity, "prod tag" is the indication that a page has been submitted for PROposed Deletion (prod), and "substub" is a really short article with really minimal content. If User:AndreaUKA wants to improve the article significantly, maybe it can be kept in Wikipedia, but unless that happens, delete for the reasons stated in the nomination. --Metropolitan90 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my preference to neutral in recognition of the work that has already been done on the article. --Metropolitan90 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Metropolitan90,for your help and explanation. I will endeavour to update my entry so that it meets with your (WIKI) satisfaction. Is there any deadline for this? I'm afraid I will not be able to do this until tomorrow at the earliest.

I am also unsure how to 'sign' my post, but will try to do so now. Thanks. --AndreaUKA

  • Comment To AndreaUKA. To sign your posts, add four tildes to them, thus: ~~~~. These discussions generally run for five days unless an obvious consensus is reached before then. Tevildo 20:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment, again, to AndreaUKA. If you decide that you _do_ want to delete the article, add {{db-author}} to the top of it, and it will be removed by an admin. Tevildo 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tevildo (hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this!). I'm afraid my (US) keyboard is set to UK, so I'm unable to use the tilde option, it seems. I will try to update my entry tomorrow. However, if I have no time to do so (and I *am* very busy), please feel free to delete, as I said. No hard feelings on my part - that's life, eh? Meanwhile, huge thanks to all for your help and guidance.

Hello again all. Well, I've managed to add some more to the article. I do hope it's now acceptable. If so, I will try to expand just as soon as I have some more time. I think the Small Presses link (list) is very useful to writers (although it wasn't me who put it there) and hope you agree. Thanks to all for your understanding.

In the absence of tildes on my keyboard, I will have to sign myself thus: AndreaUKA

  • Neutral for now. I think that links to the newspaper reviews mentioned in the article would be enough to establish notability - you're nearly there. Incidentally, you can copy and paste the tildes from my earlier comment (don't put in the <nowiki> tags, though), or use ALT-126, or just configure your keyboard correctly. :) Tevildo 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So I can! Hadn't though of that - thanks Tevildo. Yes, the keyboard thing is a bit of a pain. If I have it set 'correctly', I can't use the £ sign, which is vital for my work. Between the devil and the deep blue... --AndreaUKAAndreaUKA 12:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, not sure if it's relevant or not, but I linked UKA Press through from your Kevin Brownlow page, as UKA Press have just re-issued his book How It Happened Here, which has been out of print for 35 years. --AndreaUKAAndreaUKA 13:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)AndreaUKA

  • Keep following recent expansion. Should now be comfortably within WP:CORP. The article still needs tidying up - WP:REF#Citation_styles would be a good start - but I personally think it's OK to stay now. However, please note that we still have to establish a consensus that it should be kept, and my opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. (BTW, _just_ use the tildes, no need to type your name in as well. :) ) Tevildo 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Tevildo. I do agree it needs a good tidy-up - I'll study the pages you gave me and amend - thanks.

No, no, I understand perfectly (re the consensus) - I shall just keep tidying until you reach a decision. --AndreaUKA 13:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok to tag the UKA Press page for tidying-up help? I have to say I'm struggling a bit. Or should I wait until a decision has been reached? Thanks. --AndreaUKA 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I just wanted to say a HUGE 'thank you' to Tevildo for all his/her help in getting the UKA Press article up-to-scratch (hopefully). I've been editing, formatting, bulleting and doing all sorts of things I didn't know I could do and, I must say, I think it does look a lot better now. Hope you all agree :-) I will now desist (although it IS very addictive!) and await your decision. Many thanks to you all, whichever way it goes. --AndreaUKA 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello All, I think it would be a pity to exclude the UKA Press entry from Wikipedia because it is very unusual in its priorities and in having some degree of voluntary funding, which allows it to take on worthwhile projects that might not be commercially attractive. It isn't driven by the profit motive. That means that it can publish, say, poetry collections or short story collections which bigger publishers wouldn't touch because they know that no matter how good they are they aren't going to make much money. UKA Press is one of the (very few) good guys in the publishing game who offer hope to writers in non-commercial/non flavour-of-the-month fields. --User:Sirat 09:45 GMT 27 June 2006

Good morning all! I saw that there was no entry for The Grumpy Old Bookman, although his litblog is mentioned several times on your pages, so I've added one. Hope this is okay - I'll try to add more to it later. And thank you very much for your kind words, Sirat. --AndreaUKA 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk • 05:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, article looks okay to me. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a bit ragged round the edges and could do with tidying to bring in line with usual article style, but there's enough there of notability (prizes, reviews, authors) to merit inclusion. However, please try to include links to 3rd party sites not just the UKA site for statements such as "Sheldon Goldfarb's "Remember, Remember" [13] has been nominated for the 2006 Arthur Ellis Award for Best Juvenile Mystery in Canada". References to newspapers should give date, article name and author. Tyrenius 06:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks for the advice, Tyrenius. I'll go off now and see what I can do re 3rd party links etc. --AndreaUKA 09:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hello again, I've changeg quite a few of the UKA links now, to 3rd party links, and added a few more as well. I have left the UKA links in the 'Author' section, however, but can change those to 3rd party as well if you like. Perhaps linking through to their Amazon pages? Thanks for your help. --AndreaUKA 09:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup Dlyons493 Talk 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk. Could you please tell me how you would like me to cleanup? I've done everything asked thus far, and am a bit stumped as to what more I can do. Perhaps I could ask for editing help? --AndreaUKA 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Small publishers can be notable, but they need to have published a good number of works for anyone to have heard of them. It's clear from this that they've not published many books. I don't feel notability is established in this case. --NMChico24 22:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I think size is not, in itself, an indication of notability, when assessing authors, or books and publishers. Some famous authors have written only one book, and some publishers have one 'important' book. A publisher may stay small because it's nonprofit, another may be a specialist - though they can do well financially whether by chance, or by publishing work which is significantly noted to be brilliant, or memorable. As an example: "In January (2006) the English translation of Elias Khoury's 11th novel, Gate of the Sun, was released by the three-year-old, nonprofit Brooklyn (N.Y.)-based, Archipelago Books. The buzz started immediately and The New York Times and Publisher's Weekly bestowed rave reviews on the tale, a contemporary homage to the Middle-Eastern epic 1001 Nights, reset in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon." [1]. ASter 09:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The oft mentioned wikipedia notability criteria for companies and corporations is in this case... "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". This company satisfies the independent source (i.e. the authors own the moral rights to their works) and obviously there multiple works (the notability policy doesn't say how big multiple is so people who say e.g. 50 works is not enough, can't verify their statement). I guess the only issue is: are the works trivial ?. Do any of the newspaper reviews call the published works trivial ?. A quick read of a few reviews don't call these works trivial. Thus the article satisfies the Notability policy. Ttiotsw 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Ttiotsw Saga City 12:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a solid, notable article at this time. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Some good reports eg www.bluechrome.co.uk: The UKA Press is perhaps the most prolific new publisher in the UK today. Stephen B Streater 21:05, 6 July 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_The_UKA_Press_d6b0.html"