Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bdsmbooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Notability is measured by the presence of multiple independant reliable sources. Neither Alexa nor Google hits are conclusive evidence of notability although they can be useful indications. In this case, the article was nominated on the basis of disputed notability and no-one has established the existance of the required sources. Consensus is measured against policy not headcount. Delete Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bdsmbooks

Bdsmbooks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The organization is non-notable as a Google News search showed exactly zero results [1]. A regular Google search showed nearly 5,000 results most of which seemed to be user generated and not reliable sources. The article had already been deleted under WP:CSD#G11, but the editor reposted and asked for discussion and more research and I am nominating for AfD in good faith, although this article should probably be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply to this too: The Google search showed over 5000 results when I tried, and most were, as you say, just affiliated sites. But they included Alexa (which is independent) ranking it as #2 in the field, and other rankers with similar conclusions. To me this seems (for such a niche market) more like a yes than a no for notability. Steve Rapaport (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I already deleted it once today and it isn't looking any better now. It either needs some proper references and an assertion of notability, or the long walk down the short plank. --John (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't delete per standards of notability. True, there's no news about it. There's no news about bdsm publishers in general. But Alexa ranks it number 2 in popularity in its field ( http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=227433&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity ), and higher than all six of the publishers mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm#Publishers . So if this one isn't notable, all six of the others in that article should be removed and replaced with Pink Flamingo Press, the only one that's ranked higher by Alexa. Google PageRank tells the same story. Bdsmbooks gets over 5000 hits and PR 3/10, compared with, say, "Silver Moon Books" at 538 hits and PR 1/10. Yet Silver Moon Books has an article that's been restored recently, that looks just like an ad to me.

My feeling is that if any BDSM publishers at all deserve an article, it's the most popular/significant or oldest ones. This one seems to qualify for all three. Steve Rapaport (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply to SimpleParadox. Good point, Simple -- I read through your page and the Pokemon argument link. Just because other trash is in there, doesn't mean this should be. Assuming it's trash. But I hope I've got a couple other arguments above that go beyond that. The argument goes like this:
  • BDSM#Publishers shows a few notable publishers, and arguably, since it's a significant article, should do so.
  • All of those publishers have articles of their own, even those that are non-notable by any standards.
  • As part of maintenance of BDSM, it makes sense to occasionally look at those publishers to be sure that they are NOT link spam, and check Alexa and/or Google for whatever publishers in that field are most noteworthy to include on that page instead.
  • In trying to do so, I came across bdsmbooks.com, which is ugly but quite popular in the field, as shown by Google and Alexa. I also checked the other pages mentioned on that article. Most of them are indeed notable, but two are considerably less so than bdsmbooks.
  • My thinking is that the BDSM article could be improved by keeping standards of notable links current. Simply keeping the links that are there, and deleting any new additions, isn't really logical, as per the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There could be any number of reasons why less-notable publishers are historically included. My job is to make the notable ones be there now.Steve Rapaport (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Thank you for your response. I just want to clarify that I have no horse in this race, Steve. I do not have anything personal against BDSM or related articles. I am concerned that the term notable in this case is being thrown around a bit loosely. I appreciate the candor with which you make your argument and I certainly see where you are coming from on this issue, but in my opinion this article does not meet the suggested guidelines for inclusion of web content. Let us wait a bit and see if anyone else is going to chime in on this issue. --SimpleParadox 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: After reading Pentland Hick and doing a little digging, I agree that Merge could be an option here. --SimpleParadox 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per John's suggestion. Tyrenius (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge seems to be the consensus. I'll accept it and work on it if that's okay. Thanks for your understanding and assistance. Steve Rapaport (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)T
  • Keep. BDSMBooks should not be merged, as it is a separate entity from the person who created it (and Silver Moon Books is no longer connected with Hicks). BDSMBooks is notable in the BDSM field (if only just, by some standards) and is likely to grow bigger and more notable. --Interesdom (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In that case I would be in favour of deleting it, and recreating it if or when it becomes "bigger and more noable". It seems clear there is not enough to sustain an article at the moment. --John (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are 315 google hits, which doesn't prove notability by any stretch of the imagination. Also, no google news results, and only trivial google books mentions. Addhoc (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable imprint. Mbisanz (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (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.