Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books

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 Keep. No consensus to delete; article is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featherproof books

Featherproof books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable vanity press; Zach Dodson is up for AfD as well.

Also listing the cofounder:

Jonathan Messinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both, neither is notable enough for inclusion - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete to both. Mr mark taylor (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be enough sources to support the article, meet guidelines.John Z (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. And while we're at it, don't forget to vote Delete on all of the associated AfDs, which should have been bundled to this one, Zach Dodson and Jonathan Messinger and Brian Costello and Todd Dills and Samia Saleem and Susannah Felts. Somebody--probably associated with this Featherproof micro-press--has been going around spamming Wikipedia with articles about every non-notable person ever associated with Featherproof. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Featherproof is not a vanity press, no one other the AFD initiator has (per Google) ever described it as a vanity press, and nothing on its website indicates it to be a vanity press. It's a new, small, independent publisher which has attracted a nontrivial amount of attention in the media which focus on small presses. This jihad conducted by a number of meanspirited editors against the user who created this and related articles violates WP:BITE, not to mention Wikipedia's policies regarding good faith, personal attacks, and civility, as well as the policies regarding campaigning on matters like this. This sort of contagious, poisonous behavior has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment There has been a notability tag sitting on the page since September last year, I think that enough good faith has been assumed. The first [Special:Contributions/Justinhoffman editor] to edit these pages has contributed nothing outside these pages. The same is true of the [Special:Contributions/MegBaker second editor]. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And that justifies lying about the press and abusing people associated with it? Thats a disgusting notion. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Featherproof seems to have a licence to work out of someone's home [1] Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The links that you provide resolve to a page that does not mention Featherproof books and to a "page not found" entry. Perhaps you should ether provide working links or withdraw your comment expeditiously. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Very interesting--thank you for digging up this information. Obviously, any "publisher" that's actually working out of somebody's garage or basement or off a kitchen table is not notable in the publishing industry. This is undoubtedly why this "company" so thoroughly fails WP:CORP. Qworty (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally wrong. There are notable indie movie, music, and video game creators who self-publish, especially now with digital distribution, who work out of the owners' homes. No reason why not the same in books. Working out of one's home has nothing to do with notability. (Tolstoy worked out of his home.) I'm voting delete below but definitely not for this fake reason. Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • CommentI am definitely not withdrawing my comment. I know about the dead link, but I don't think Google's search engine made up the text about a 'home licence' and I carefully qualified my comment with the word 'seems'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. More than passes general notability with multiple, nontrivial mentions in verifiable, reliable sources. It doesn't even require extra research; the information is right there in the article. It shouldn't matter where it operates from or whether or not it is an incorporated company; mentions in RS are all that matter, and the subject has those. I don't find the deletion arguments very persuading since they seem to disregard that. Celarnor Talk to me 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for both. Fails notability. Shovon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the books listed in the list of published books are red links. Tempshill (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't really mean anything, for multiple reasons. First, that could be because no one's bothered to write the articles yet; it isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of notability per se. Secondly, the notability or lack of notability of a product doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the notability of the producer. The company could be the subject of multiple independent pieces of coverage, as this one is, while their product is not. Celarnor Talk to me 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've cleaned the Featherproof books article up a bit, and added a couple more references. The red links are gone. :) My feeling was that it did an ok job at asserting notability previously, with the Poets & Writers reference among others, but the desperately needed cleanup probably hid some of that. It should be a bit better now, so hopefully it is good enough to warrant keeping. In regard to Jonathan Messinger, the article really did need a lot of work, but I've added some references and rewritten it a bit. He's been reviewed in a number of independent publications, including Booklist, Chicago Tribune and The Portand Mercury, as well as being interviewed here and there. His stage show was also mentioned (although it wasn't much more than a mention) in The New York Times. So I would definitely recommend keeping him. - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, With the work done by Bilby I feel that this article passes the basic criteria in WP:CORP. I found another reference but only have access to an abstract in the EBSCO database through my library. Title is "the indie initiative: our annual look at small press success" from Poets & Writers; Sep/Oct2006, Vol. 34 Issue 5, p58-68, 11p. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a feature on the subject, but its more than a trivial mention; it discusses the subject for about 6 sentences. Celarnor Talk to me 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvements made by Bilby that appear to satisfy WP:CORP. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 4 June 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.